ArticleBMC surgery2022
Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection of a Total Femur Megaprosthesis: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Functional Outcomes.Cureus · 2026Article
- Defensive antibacterial coating in orthopaedic surgery: Current evidence and future direction.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Timing-specific Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention and 2-Stage Revision for Megaprosthesis-Related Infection: Optimizing the Window Period for Improved Outcomes.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Modular megaprostheses yield high any-type failure rate but acceptable infection control rate in patients with chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss: a single-center experience.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Complications Rate and Hip Function After Revision of Infected Hip Arthroplasty with Bone Defects using Bone Allografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Biomechanical analysis of patient specific cone vs conventional stem in revision total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Characteristics and Epidemiology of Megaprostheses Infections: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Silver-Coated Distal Femur Megaprosthesis in Chronic Infections with Severe Bone Loss: A Multicentre Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Reimplantation after Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Role of Microbiology.Antibiotics (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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.