ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Predictors of failure of two-stage revision in periprosthetic knee infection: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum two-year follow-up.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying potential predictive indicators for reimplantation timing in two-stage revision: a meta-analysis and system review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Predictors of Failure After Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Knee.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in acute prosthetic joint infection: unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs. total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Two-stage total joint replacement for hip or knee septic arthritis: post-traumatic etiology and difficult-to-treat infections predict poor outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Unbalanced metaphyseal fixation is associated with an increased aseptic loosening of revision total knee arthroplasty at mean 4-year follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- "Is every revision the same?" definition of complexity in knee revision surgery.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- The Use of Barbed Sutures in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review on Clinical-Surgical Outcomes, Costs, and Complications.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Nanostructured Coatings Based on Graphene Oxide for the Management of Periprosthetic Infections.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Total knee arthroplasty after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a narrative review.Annals of joint · 2024Review
- The incidence and risk factors of intraoperative bacterial contamination in primary total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the standardization of two-stage knee revision protocols, a high percentage of failures still occurs. Identifying the predictors of failure is necessary to determine appropriate management and counsel for patients with a periprosthetic knee infection. This study aimed to identify risk factors predicting the failure, to describe implant survival, and to report the mid-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection.
methodsData of patients who underwent two-stage knee revision from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed, and 108 patients were included. The mean age was 66.6 ± 9.2 years. The mean follow-up was 52.9 ± 15.6 months. Logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of treatment failure. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess implant survival. Preoperative functional outcomes were compared to those registered at the final follow-up.
resultsDifficult-to-treat infections (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.2-14.5, p = 0.025), the number of previous surgeries (OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.005), and the level of tibial bone defect (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p = 0.027) significantly predicted the failure of two-stage knee revision. Survivorship of implants was significantly lower for patients presenting these risk factors (p < 0.05). Mean Knee Society Score improved from 49.0 ± 12.0 to 80.2 ± 13.6 (p < 0.001). Mean Oxford Knee Score improved from 22.2 ± 4.9 to 36.1 ± 6.0 points (p < 0.001).
conclusionDifficult-to-treat pathogens, the number of previous surgeries, and the level of tibial bone defect were independent risk factors of two-stage knee revision failure. Overall, the two-stage protocol provided a good survival rate and functional outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34812921What 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.