ArticleInternational orthopaedics2021
Outcomes of patients with unexpected diagnosis of infection at total hip or total knee arthroplasty revisions.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Periprosthetic joint infection and heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Synovial Calprotectin in Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Diagnostic Accuracy and Exploratory Adjunctive Value to Preoperative ICM Classification.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Routine intraoperative infection testing in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision: a matched cohort retrospective study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Agreement Analysis Among Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections Classifications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Identification of preoperative predictive markers of periprosthetic joint infection in presumed aseptic revisions of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective observational study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Observational
- Interaction of Bacteria, Immune Cells, and Surface Topography in Periprosthetic Joint Infections.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rate after Single-Stage Hardware Removal and Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Letter to the editor regarding "Outcomes of patients with unexpected diagnosis of infection at total hip or total knee arthroplasty revisions".International orthopaedics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe pre-operative differential diagnosis between periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and aseptic failure is challenging particularly in low virulence and biofilm-related infections. This study aimed to assess the incidence and survival of patients with unexpected PJIs in a presumed aseptic revision of total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasties.
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of patients was performed with 295 patients undergoing THA (n = 241) or TKA (n = 54) revision for presumed aseptic causes. Patients were diagnosed with unexpected PJI taking into account leukocyte count in the synovial fluid, sonicate, synovial culture, and tissue cultures of samples collected during surgery. The primary endpoint was the infection-free implant survival rate at theone year follow-up.
resultsThe unexpected PJIs were 60 out of 295 (20.3%), whereas 235 (79.7%) were aseptic revisions. In the unexpected PJI group, 6 (11.1%) patients underwent knee revision and 54 (22.4%) hip revision. At the one year follow-up, one patient (1.6%) in the unexpected PJI group and 3 (1.3%) in the aseptic group (p = 1.0) failed for infection. The infection-free implant survival rate at the one year follow-up was 98.3% (C.I. 95%, 94.9-99.9%) for the unexpected PJI group and 98.7% (C.I. 95%, 97.3-99.9%) (p = 0.82) for the aseptic group.
conclusionThe incidence of unexpected PJIs in a presumed aseptic revision of THAs and TKAs has been previously underestimated. The infection-free implant survival rate at the one year follow-up in patients with unexpected PJIs was not significantly lower compared with patients undergoing aseptic revision.
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.