Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36479014›Full record

ArticleShoulder & elbow2022

Periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A 10-year retrospective analysis outlining the heterogeneity among these patients.

Taylor Paziuk, Ryan M Cox, Michael J Gutman, Alexander J Rondon, Thema Nicholson, Katherine Belden, Surena Namdari

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Taylor PaziukRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ryan M CoxRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael J GutmanRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander J RondonRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thema NicholsonRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Katherine BeldenDepartment of Infectious Disease, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Surena NamdariRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8222-554X
Thomas Jefferson University · USThomas Jefferson University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis and treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult problem. The purpose of this study was to utilize the 2018 International Consensus Meeting definition of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection to categorize revision shoulder arthroplasty cases and determine variations in clinical presentation by presumed infection classification. Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Likelihood of periprosthetic joint infection was determined based on International Consensus Meeting scoring. All patients classified as definitive or probable periprosthetic joint infection were classified as periprosthetic joint infection. All patients classified as possible or unlikely periprosthetic joint infection were classified as aseptic. The periprosthetic joint infection cohort was subsequently divided into culture-negative, non-virulent microorganism, and virulent microorganism cohorts based on culture results. Results: Four hundred and sixty cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed. Eighty (17.4%) patients were diagnosed as definite or probable periprosthetic joint infection, of which 29 (36.3%), 39 (48.8%), and 12 (15.0%) were classified as virulent, non-virulent, or culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, respectively. There were significant differences among periprosthetic joint infection subgroups with regard to preoperative C-reactive protein (p = 0.020), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.051), sinus tract presence (p = 0.008), and intraoperative purulence (p < 0.001). The total International Consensus Meeting criteria scores were also significantly different between the periprosthetic joint infection cohorts (p < 0.001). Discussion: While the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection has improved with the advent of International Consensus Meeting criteria, there remain distinct differences between periprosthetic joint infection classifications that warrant further investigation to determine the accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment.

Indexed as

periprosthetic joint infectionrevision shoulder arthroplastyShoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36479014
PMCPMC9720872
OpenAlexW3197717147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.