ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021
Periprosthetic infections: How do we diagnose and treat? Results of an online survey and comparison with international recommendations.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- ChatGPT in Orthopedic Trauma: Consistency, Accuracy, and Agreement With Textbook and Expert Opinion.Cureus · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal infections.Polish journal of radiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndoprosthetic replacement surgery of hip and knee joints is widely performed, but always carries the risk of developing periprosthetic infection (PPI). Treatment of PPI is lengthy and demanding for the patient, often involving multiple surgeries as well as lengthy drug therapies. Remediation is not always successful despite extensive therapy.
methodsAn online survey was used to investigate whether the therapeutic measures implemented in German hospitals are based on international treatment recommendations. For this purpose, German physicians who regularly treat periprosthetic infections in their clinics were asked to complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire asked about internal hospital procedures. These were then compared with international recommendations.
resultsWith a response rate of 10.9%, the questionnaire shows agreement with the international recommendations in large parts of the operative and medicinal procedures. In preoperative imaging for example, two-plane radiographs are the standard. Similarly, the participants' approach to preoperative specimen collection, incubation time, and operative management (regarding one- or two-stage approach to septic joint) reflects the recommendations. Deviations were particularly evident in the area of laboratory diagnostics, where the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is determined in only 17.1%, contrary to the recommendations. Whereas procalcitonin (PCT) and blood culture sampling takes place regularly. Clear differences emerges in the use of drains, which, contrary to the recommendations, are used very regularly (almost 70%). In this survey, the time intervals between the onset of infection symptoms and the start of therapy (prosthesis-preserving therapy) is shown to be longer than recommended internationally.
conclusionIn summary, however, the recommended approaches of the international groups in most respects are followed, a high willingness of respondents to collaborate with local infectious disease specialists demonstrates the complexity of the disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.