ArticleScientific reports2022
Post-operative prophylactic antibiotics in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine intraoperative infection testing in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision: a matched cohort retrospective study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Observational
- The Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Antibiotic Resistance, Clinical Outcomes, and Costs in Adult Hemato-Oncological and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- How are Oral Antibiotics Being Used in Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Review of the Literature.Orthopedic reviews · 2024Article
- Pathogenic bacteria characteristics and drug resistance in acute, delayed, and chronic periprosthetic joint infection: A retrospective analysis of 202 patients.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis in One-Stage Revision of Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The use of extended antibiotic (EA) prophylaxis (> 24 h) remains controversial in aseptic revision arthroplasty. We sought to determine whether EA prophylaxis reduces the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty. A total of 2800 patients undergoing aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty at five institutional databases from 2008 to 2017 were evaluated. One to two nearest-neighbor propensity score matching analysis was conducted between patients who did and did not receive extended antibiotic prophylaxis. The matching elements included age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital distribution, year of surgery, joint (hip or knee), surgical time, CRP, preoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and length of stay. The primary outcome was the development of PJI, which was assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year following revision and analyzed separately. A total of 2467 (88%) patients received EA prophylaxis, and 333 (12%) patients received standard antibiotic (SA) prophylaxis (≤ 24 h). In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no difference between patients who received EA prophylaxis and those who did not in terms of 30-day PJI (0.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 1.00), 90-day PJI (1.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.62) and 1- year PJI (3.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.109). For revision hip, the incidence of PJI was 0.2% vs 0% at 30 days (p = 0.482), 1.6% vs 1.4% at 90 days (p = 0.837), and 3.4% vs 5.1% at 1 year (p = 0.305) in the EA and SA group. For revision knee, the incidence of PJI was 0.4% vs 0.9% at 30 days (p = 0.63), 1.8% vs 3.4% at 90 days (p = 0.331), and 4.4% vs 7.8% at 1 year (p = 0.203) in the EA and SA group. A post hoc power analysis revealed an adequate sample size with a beta value of 83%. In addition, the risks of Clostridium difficile and resistant organism infection were not increased. This multi-institutional study demonstrated no difference in the rate of PJIs between patients who received extended antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not in aseptic revision arthroplasty. The risk of C. difficile and resistant organism infection was not increased with prolonged antibiotic use.
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.