Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36067886›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of arthroplasty2023

The Impact of Exchanging Cerclage Fixation after Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Mathew J Whittaker, Prerna Arora, James I Huddleston, Stuart B Goodman, William J Maloney, Derek F Amanatullah

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Extended trochanteric osteotomy is a safe procedure in two-stage hip revision: a systematic review of the literature.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mathew J WhittakerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Prerna AroraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
James I HuddlestonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Stuart B GoodmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
William J MaloneyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Derek F AmanatullahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Stanford University · US

Funding

Institutional Career Development Core (KL2)KL2TR003143 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ASCH, STEVEN M. · 2019 to 2023
$8.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) is a powerful tool for femoral component revision. There is limited evidence that directly supports its use in the setting of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Cerclage fixation raises the theoretical concern for persistent infection.

methodsOur institutional database included 76 ETOs for revision hip arthroplasty between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2019. The cohort was divided based on indication for femoral component revision: PJI versus aseptic revision. The PJI group was subdivided based on second-stage exchange versus retention of initial cerclage fixation. Operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, and rate of repeat revision surgery were evaluated.

resultsForty-nine patients (64%) underwent revision for PJI and 27 patients (36%) underwent aseptic revision. There was no significant difference in operative times (P = .082), postoperative complications (P = .258), or rate of repeat revision surgery (P = .322) between groups. Of the 49 patients in the PJI group, 40 (82%) retained cerclage fixation while 9 (18%) had cerclage exchange. Cerclage exchange did not significantly impact operative time (P = .758), blood loss (P = .498), rate of repeat revision surgery (P = .302), or postoperative complications (P = .253) including infection (P = .639).

conclusionAn ETO remains a powerful tool for femoral component removal, even in the presence of a PJI. A multi-institutional investigation would be required to validate observed trends toward better infection control with cerclage exchange. Cerclage exchange did not appear to increase operative time, blood loss, or postoperative complication rates.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansNaphthalenesulfonatesOsteotomyPeptidesReoperationRetrospective StudiesNaphthalenesulfonatesP 498Peptidescerclage fixationextended trochanteric osteotomyfemoral componentperiprosthetic joint infectionrevision total hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36067886
PMCPMC10167626
OpenAlexW4294916426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.