ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2023
Clinical Outcomes and Infection Rates Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Aseptic Failure versus Septic Failure.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2023. 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.
- Dual-antibiotic bone cement (gentamicin + vancomycin) in preventing and treating infections during revision knee arthroplasty in high-risk patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Impact of temperature and humidity on periprosthetic joint infections following total knee arthroplasty: a 12-year study in a Mediterranean climate.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Septic vs. aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: are scoring systems effective in communicating the nuances?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Etiology and prosthesis model have no influence in the functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty revision surgery at five years.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Tibial Tubercle Osteotomy in Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is controversial whether revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) due to septic failure shows inferior clinical outcomes compared with TKA due to aseptic failure. Moreover, few studies have compared the infection rates after revision TKA between aseptic and septic failure. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and infection rates after aseptic and septic revision TKA. Methods: Between April 2006 and May 2019, 68 and 26 patients underwent revision TKA due to aseptic failure (aseptic group) and septic failure (septic group), respectively. The postoperative range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), and infection rates were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean follow-up durations in the aseptic and septic groups were 44.4 and 54.8 months, respectively. The septic group showed inferior postoperative ROM (124.1° and 109.4°, Conclusions: Revision TKA with septic failure showed inferior postoperative clinical outcomes compared with aseptic revision surgery. A slightly higher infection rate was observed in the septic group but it was not significantly different.
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.