ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention for prosthetic joint infection: comparison of outcomes between total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been widely studied in the context of total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the outcomes of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for PJI have never been compared between hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and THA. This led us to carry out a retrospective case-control study comparing the surgical treatment of post-operative infections between HRA and THA to determine the infection remission rate and the medium-term functional outcomes.
methodsThis single-centre case-control study analysed 3056 HRA cases of which 13 patients had a PJI treated by DAIR. These patients were age-matched with 15 infected THA hips treated by DAIR and modular component exchange (controls). Their survival (no recurrence of the infection) was compared and factors that could affect the success of the DAIR were explored: sex, body mass index, age at surgery, presence of haematoma, type of bacteria present and antibiotic therapy.
resultsAt a mean follow-up of five years (2-7), the infection control rate was significantly higher in the HRA group (100% [13/13]) than in the THA group (67% [10/15]) (p = 0.044). More patients in the THA group had undergone early DAIR (< 30 days) (73% [11/15]) than in the HRA group (54% [7/13]). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the ASA score, presence of comorbidities, body mass index and duration of the initial arthroplasty procedure. At the review, the Oxford-12 score of 17/60 (12-28) was better in the HRA group than the score of 25/60 (12-40) in the THA group (p = 0.004).
conclusionDAIR, no matter the time frame, is a viable therapeutic option for infection control after HRA.
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.