ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2022
Role of joint aspiration before re-implantation in patients with a cement spacer in place.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Review
- Pre-aspiration outpatient ultrasound can accurately predict dry taps in prosthetic hips suspected of infection; a prospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Risk Factors and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infections in Megaprostheses-A Review of the Literature.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Interval between two-stage exchanges: what is optimal and how do you know?Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe usefulness of a mandatory joint aspiration before re-implantation in patients with a cement spacer already in place is unclear.
aimTo evaluate the role of culturing synovial fluid obtained by joint aspiration before re-implantation in patients who underwent a two-stage septic revision.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted, including patients that underwent a two-stage septic revision (hip or knee) from 2010 to 2017. After the first stage revision and according to intraoperative culture results, all patients were treated with an antibiotic protocol for 6-8 wk. Following 2 wk without antibiotics, a culture of synovial fluid was obtained. The results of these cultures were recorded and compared with cultures obtained during re-implantation surgery.
resultsForty-one patients (20 hip and 21 knee spacers) were included in the final analysis. In 39 cases, the culture of synovial fluid was negative, while in the remaining 2 cases (knee spacers) no analysis was possible due to dry tap. In 5 of the patients, two or more intraoperative cultures taken during the re-implantation surgery were positive.
conclusionWe found no evidence to support mandatory joint aspiration before re-implantation in patients with a cement spacer in place.
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.