Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35216567›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2022

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss.

Nicola Logoluso, Francesca Alice Pedrini, Ilaria Morelli, Elena De Vecchi, Carlo Luca Romanò, Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola Logoluso *IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Centre for Reconstructive Surgery and Osteoarticular Infections (C.R.I.O. Unit), via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Francesca Alice Pedrini *Residency Program in Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Milan, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Ilaria MorelliASST Ovest Milanese, Ospedale di Legnano, UOC Ortopedia e Traumatologia, via Papa Giovanni Paolo II, 20025, Legnano, MI, Italy. ilaria.morelli90@gmail.com.
Elena De VecchiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology, via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Carlo Luca Romanò *Studio Cecca-Romanò, Corso Venezia 2, 20121, Milan, Italy.
Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini *IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Centre for Reconstructive Surgery and Osteoarticular Infections (C.R.I.O. Unit), via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITAziende Socio Sanitarie Territoriale Ovest MilaneseUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeriprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

methodsTwenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24-120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

resultsThe infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7-99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3-97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7-99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3-97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7-93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

conclusionsProximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisFollow-Up StudiesHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone and joint infectionsCoatingsLimb salvageModular megaprosthesisNon-oncologic megaprosthesisPeriprosthetic joint infectionProximal femoral arthroplastyRevision total hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35216567
PMCPMC8876444
OpenAlexW4214497362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.