Observational studyActa orthopaedica2023
Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of pathogen sensitivity to antibiotics loaded in cement on the number of revisions and costs in the treatment of periprosthetic knee infection.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Review
- Editorial: Management of PJI/SSI after joint arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeHigh-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) may reduce the risk of revision after total hip and knee replacements. The aim of our study therefore was to determine the risk of re-revision following first time aseptic hip or knee revision using single versus dual ALBC. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register treated from 2007 to 2018 with first time cemented aseptic hip (n = 2,529) or knee revisions (n = 7,124) were incorporated into 2 datasets. The primary endpoint of this observational cohort study was subsequent all-cause re-revision. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and competing risk was analyzed for both groups.
resultsThere was no difference in re-revision rate (any reason) with single versus dual ALBC (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.35 for hip and 0.93, CI 0.80-1.07 for knee revisions). The 10-year crude cumulative re-revision rate also showed no differences for single versus dual ALBC use. The crude cumulative 7-year THA re-revision and 9-year TKA re-revision rates did not show any difference in implant survival for common cement types used.
conclusionWe could not confirm the potential benefit of using dual ALBC compared with single ALBC for aseptic hip and knee revisions.
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.