ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Factors associated with failure of surgical revision and IV antibiotics to resolve Cutibacterium periprosthetic infection of the shoulder.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- One- vs. Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCutibacterium is the most common organism causing shoulder periprosthetic infection (PJI). While most shoulder PJIs are well treated by prosthesis exchange and antibiotics, in some cases this treatment fails to resolve the infection. The factors associated with these failures have not been previously identified. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics of patients with failure of treatment for PJI.
methodsThirty-five patients suspected of having Cutibacterium PJI had revision arthroplasty with single-stage implant exchange followed by intravenous antibiotics. The characteristics of those with ≥ two positive cultures at revision surgery were compared to those who did not. The characteristics of those patients having a re-revision with ≥ two positive deep cultures (documented treatment failures) were compared to those who did not.
resultsThe 17 patients that had ≥ two positive cultures at their index revision were more likely to be male, to have had ream and run procedures, and to have higher loads of Cutibacterium on pre-operative cultures of their unprepared skin. The five patients that had documented treatment failure had higher loads of Cutibacterium on their skin and in deep cultures obtained at their index revision.
conclusionPatients harboring high loads of Cutibacterium on their unprepared skin prior to revision and high loads of Cutibacterium on deep cultures at the time of their index revision are at increased risk for failure of implant exchange and antibiotics to resolve a Cutibacterium PJI.
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.