Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34212915›Full record

SynthesisActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2021

The outcomes of surgical management of failed two-stage revision knee arthroplasty.

Carla Maden, Monketh Jaibaji, Sujith Konan, Luigi Zagra, Matteo Borella, Adrian Harvey, Andrea Volpin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Carla MadenWest Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK. carla.maden.13@alumni.ucl.ac.uk.
Monketh Jaibajia:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:24:"Royal Victoria Infirmary";}. jaibajimonketh@gmail.com.
Sujith KonanDepartment of trauma and Orthopaedics, University College Hospital, London. sujithkonan@nhs.net.
Luigi ZagraDepartment Trauma and Orthopaedic, Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi IRCCS, Milan, Italy. luigi.zagra@fastwebnet.it.
Matteo BorellaDepartment Trauma and Orthopaedic, Azienda ULSS 1 Dolomiti, Belluno, Italy. matt.borella@gmail.com.
Adrian Harvey6- Department Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK. arharvey@doctors.org.uk.
Andrea Volpin7- Department Trauma and Orthopaedics, NHS Grampian, Elgin, UK. andrea.volpin@nhs.scot.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Joint infection following total knee arthroplasty has significant consequences on both the patient and healthcare system. Two stage revision arthroplasties is viewed as the gold standard in management. However, recurrence of infection following this procedure is a growing clinical problem for a multitude of reasons. Despite a variety of surgical options for management of failure of two-stage revision arthroplasty, the potential for complications and functional limitation remains high, and the optimal strategy is yet to be determined. Methods We performed a systematic review of all papers reporting on the outcomes of the surgical management of failure of two-stage revision arthroplasty published up to and including January 2020. Data was extracted on patient demographics, study design, methodological quality, indication for surgery, surgical technique, clinical and functional outcomes, and complications. Results Nine papers with a total of 273 patients were found and analysed All surgical techniques had mixed results in term of clinical and functional outcomes, and the rate of complications was high in all studies. Knee arthrodesis had the lower risk of failure than repeat 2 stage revision. Poor patient immunological status and limb status were weakly associated with increased risk of failure. Conclusion Despite failure of two-stage revision arthroplasty being a growing clinical issue, we were not able to identify any consistently superior surgical technique for the management of this scenario. Knee arthrodesis appears to provide the best results for improving quality of life and reducing infection recurrence, although the complication rate is high and the functional outcomes appear to be worse. Further larger and prospective studies are needed to elucidate optimal surgical management in different patient subsets.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34212915
PMCPMC8343741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.