Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37370301›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Use of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Two-Stage Revision of Septic Hip Arthroplasties: A Double-Center Retrospective Study.

Lara Krüger, André Strahl, Leon-Gordian Koepke, Bernd Fink, Frank Timo Beil, Jan Hubert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Lara KrügerDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
André StrahlDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2385-9582
Leon-Gordian KoepkeDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Spine Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3966-8537
Bernd FinkDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7485-3941
Frank Timo BeilDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Jan HubertDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) devices can provide a valuable contribution to patient blood management. An infection of the surgical site presents a formal contraindication to the use of ICS. To date, there is no recommendation for the use of ICS in the context of reimplantation in two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty. (2) Methods: at two hospitals of maximum endoprosthetic care, a retrospective evaluation of patients who had received ICS blood during reimplantation of hip arthroplasties was performed. Patients' and surgical characteristics, intraoperative cultures, and the occurrence of septic complications in the short- and long-term follow-up were recorded. (3) Results: 144 patients were included. Detection of positive cultures during reimplantation occurred in 13 cases. A total of 127 patients showed no complication, 8 patients showed a non-specific septic complication, 6 patients a local persistence of infection, and 3 patients a possible bloodstream-associated infection. No significant correlation was found between the occurrence of complications and the detection of positive intraoperative cultures. (4) Conclusions: no clustering of septic complications due to the use of ICS during reimplantation was found. In the risk-benefit analysis, we considered the use of ICS during reimplantation to be indicated in terms of patient blood management, while the safety of the procedure during septic first-stage resection arthroplasty or septic one-stage exchange arthroplasty was not investigated. Given the paucity of comparative literature, further studies are needed on ideal patient blood management in the setting of septic revision arthroplasty.

Indexed as

cell salvagepatient blood managementperiprosthetic joint infectionrevision arthroplastyseptic surgery

Identifiers

PMID37370301
PMCPMC10295013
OpenAlexW4381571416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.