Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37140202›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2023

Risk factors for revision due to prosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty based on 62,087 knees in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register from 2014 to 2020.

Hannes Keemu, Kasperi J Alakylä, Riku Klén, Valtteri J Panula, Mikko S Venäläinen, Jaason J Haapakoski, Antti P Eskelinen, Konsta Pamilo, Jukka S Kettunen, Ari-Pekka Puhto and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

13 authors.

Hannes Keemu *Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku. Hannes.Keemu@tyks.fi.
Kasperi J Alakylä *Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku.
Riku KlénTurku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku.
Valtteri J PanulaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku.
Mikko S VenäläinenTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, Turku; Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital, Turku.
Jaason J HaapakoskiNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki.
Antti P EskelinenCoxa Hospital for Joint Replacement and Faculty of Medicine and Health Technologies, University of Tampere, Tampere.
Konsta PamiloCoxa Hospital for Joint Replacement and Faculty of Medicine and Health Technologies, University of Tampere, Tampere.
Jukka S KettunenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio.
Ari-Pekka PuhtoOYS Centre for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu.
Anna I VasaraDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Finland.
Laura L EloTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, Turku.
Keijo T MäkeläDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the commonest reason for revision after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We assessed the risk factors for revision due to PJI following TKA based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe analyzed 62,087 primary condylar TKAs registered between June 2014 and February 2020 with revision for PJI as the endpoint. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the first PJI revision using 25 potential patient- and surgical-related risk factors as covariates.

results484 knees were revised for the first time during the first postoperative year because of PJI. The HRs for revision due to PJI in unadjusted analysis were 0.5 (0.4-0.6) for female sex, 0.7 (0.6-1.0) for BMI 25-29, and 1.6 (1.1-2.5) for BMI > 40 compared with BMI < 25, 4.0 (1.3-12) for preoperative fracture diagnosis compared with osteoarthritis, and 0.7 (0.5-0.9) for use of an antimicrobial incise drape. In adjusted analysis the HRs were 2.2 (1.4-3.5) for ASA class III-IV compared with class I, 1.7 (1.4-2.1) for intraoperative bleeding ≥ 100 mL, 1.4 (1.2-1.8) for use of a drain, 0.7 (0.5-1.0) for short duration of operation of 45-59 minutes, and 1.7 (1.3-2.3) for long operation duration > 120 min compared with 60-89 minutes, and 1.3 (1.0-1.8) for use of general anesthesia.

conclusionWe found increased risk for revision due to PJI when no incise drape was used. The use of drainage also increased the risk. Specializing in performing TKA reduces operative time and thereby also the PJI rate.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeProsthesis-Related InfectionsFemaleFinlandHumansKneeReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID37140202
PMCPMC10158790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.