ArticleCureus2021
The Fate of Failed Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention in Infected Knee Arthroplasties: Nothing to Lose.
Article in Cureus, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redo DAIR: The Game Is Seldom Worth the Candle.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Accuracy of a Novel Preoperative Failure Risk Model for Debridement Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) in Acute Prosthetic Joint Infection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The frequency of periprosthetic knee infections increases yearly because of the popularity of the total knee prostheses. Revision knee arthroplasty is an annoying problem for both the surgeons and the patients. Debridément, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a popular alternative for the treatment of periprosthetic knee infections. Little is known about the fate of the failed DAIR patients. This study aims to investigate the effect of the failed DAIR on the clinical result after two-staged revision arthroplasty. Method Ninety-nine two-staged revision arthroplasties and 85 DAIR patients from two reference clinics were retrospectively analyzed. The minimum follow-up was 36 months. Patients were grouped according to the treatment as, two-staged revision without DAIR, two-staged revision after failed DAIR, and successful DAIR. Their Knee Society Scores (KSS), functional KSS (KSS-f) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were analyzed and compared. Results DAIR has a 52.9% success rate for the treatment of infection. Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rates and C-reactive peptide levels are not risk factors for failure, but the time passed since the index surgery is a risk factor for worse outcome scores. Failed DAIR is not a risk factor for reinfection after two-staged revision. Last KSS after failed DAIR, successful DAIR, and two-staged revision were 83.98±7.033, 91.89±4.386, and 91.38±4.735, respectively. Last KSS-f after failed DAIR, successful DAIR, and two-staged revision were 86.25±9.524, 94.56±8.106, and 94.85±5.996, respectively. Last WOMAC after failed DAIR, successful DAIR, and two-staged revision were 86.16±7.745, 94.750±4.964, and 93.319±5.961, respectively. Conclusion Failed DAIR is associated with lesser, but still good, or excellent clinical scores. DAIR is suggested as a promising treatment option for periprosthetic knee infections in well-selected patients.
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.