Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35150302›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

How do pre-operative intra-articular injections impact periprosthetic joint infection risk following primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amanda Avila, Michael T Do, Alexander J Acuña, Linsen T Samuel, Atul F Kamath

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amanda AvilaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail code A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Michael T DoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail code A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Alexander J AcuñaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail code A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Linsen T SamuelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail code A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Atul F KamathDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail code A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. kamatha@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9214-2756
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough intra-articular injections (IAIs) serve as the first-line non-surgical management for severe osteoarthritis (OA), recent analyses have suggested they are associated with an increased infection risk following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, our systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between IAIs and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following THA reported in the current literature.

methodsFive online databases were queried for analyses published from January 1st, 2000-May 1st, 2021 reporting on PJI rates between patients undergoing primary THA who did and did not preoperatively receive an IAI. The overall pooled effect of injection status on PJI incidence was determined using Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models. This was similarly conducted for segregated preoperative intervals: 0-3 months, > 3-6 months, > 6 + months.

resultsA total of 11 articles were included in our analysis reporting on 278,782 THAs (IAI: n = 41,138; no IAI: n = 237,644). Patients receiving pre-operative injections had a significantly higher risk of PJI (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; p = 0.009). However, this finding was not robust. IAI receipt within 3-months of THA was associated with significantly higher PJI rates (OR: 1.68, 95% CI 1.48-1.90; p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was demonstrated in the > 3-6 month (OR: 1.19, 95% CI 0.94-1.52; p = 0.16) and > 6 + month sub-analyses (OR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.96-1.50; p = 0.11). The results of all sub-analyses remained were robust. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that patients requiring THA should wait at least 3-months following IAI to reduce post-operative infection risk. This information can help inform patients considering OA management options, as well as adult reconstruction surgeons during preoperative optimization.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipOsteoarthritisProsthesis-Related InfectionsAdultHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsIntra-articular injections (IAIs)Meta-analysisPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI)Systematic reviewTotal hip arthroplasty (THA)

Identifiers

PMID35150302
OpenAlexW4211018623

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.