Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35848729›Full record

Observational studyActa orthopaedica2022

A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study.

Bruce Van Dijk, F Ruben H A Nurmohamed, J Fred F Hooning van Duijvenbode, Ewout S Veltman, Rob J Rentenaar, Harrie Weinans, H Charles Vogely, Bart C H Van der Wal

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Bruce Van DijkDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht. b.vandijk-6@umcutrecht.nl.
F Ruben H A NurmohamedDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.
J Fred F Hooning van DuijvenbodeDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.
Ewout S VeltmanDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.
Rob J RentenaarDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.
Harrie WeinansDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht; Department of Biomechanical Engineering, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
H Charles VogelyDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.
Bart C H Van der WalDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. PATIENTS AND

methodsAll patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate.

results128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure.

interpretationThere seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansInfection ControlProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID35848729
PMCPMC9290219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.