Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34652467›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2021

[Septic revision arthroplasty: how to confirm diagnosis, plan surgery and manage follow-up treatment].

Stephanie Kirschbaum, Carsten Perka

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 78% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephanie KirschbaumCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
Carsten PerkaCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. carsten.perka@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeptic revision arthroplasty represents an interdisciplinary challenge in terms of diagnosis as well as surgical and follow-up treatment. DIAGNOSIS: The implementation of a standardized diagnostic algorithm including anamnesis, clinic, imaging, blood sampling and joint aspiration is essential. Depending on the duration of the symptoms acute (< 3 weeks) and chronic (> 3 weeks) infections are distinguished. THERAPY: While acute infections show an immature biofilm and can usually be addressed surgically via debridement and changing the mobile parts, chronic infections almost always require a complete change of the implant. This can be done in one or two stages, depending on the general condition of the patient, the pathogen, its resistances as well as the wound conditions. The surgical revision is always followed by a resistance-based antibiotic treatment.

Indexed as

Persistent InfectionProsthesis-Related InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsArthroplastyDebridementFollow-Up StudiesHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAlgorithmsAntibioticsArthroplastyBiofilmRevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34652467
OpenAlexW3206747212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.