ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2022
Revision arthroplasty with megaprosthesis after Girdlestone procedure for periprosthetic joint infection as an option in massive acetabular and femoral bone defects.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and psychosocial impact of limited mobility during the interstage period of two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: a state-of-the-art review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Hip resection arthroplasty as a primary treatment of displaced neck fracture in non-ambulatory and fragile patients.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Subtrochanteric femoral fractures: A case series of 194 patients treated with long and short intramedullary nails.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- WHICH PROBLEMATICS IN THA AFTER ACETABULAR FRACTURES: EXPERIENCE OF 38 CASES.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Extracapsular femoral neck fractures treated with total hip arthroplasty: identification of a population with better outcomes.Orthopedic reviews · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with Girdlestone procedure (GP) or excision arthroplasty (EA) for periprosthetic infection with massive bone defects and undergoing revision arthroplasty.
methodsAll patients treated with EA or GP for hip periprosthetic infection between 2014 and 2017 and sustaining revision arthroplasty (RA) were included in the study. Patients with less than 24 months of follow-up or less than 12 months between GP or EA and RA were excluded. Any sign of implant mobilization or periprosthetic fracture was assessed through X-ray. Patients were evaluated with D'aubignè-Postel hip score before RA and at the last follow-up. Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess differences between pre-RA surgery and last follow-up. P value was set as <0.05.
resultsTwelve patients meet the inclusion criteria (mean follow-up 58+/-9.72 months). No radiographic sign of implant mobilization or periprosthetic fracture was reported. A significant difference was found for each parameter of the D'Aubigne-Postel score (p < 0.0001); none of the patients reached more than fair results in the absolute hip score. The difference between pre and post-operative global status showed a fair improvement. A significant difference was found for leg length discrepancy between pre and post RA (p<0.0001).
conclusionsConversion from EA or GP to RA in patients suffering from massive acetabular and femur defects is challenging; conversion procedure is able to reduce patients' disability and to improve walking ability. (www.actabiomedica.it).
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.