Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37851164›Full record

ReviewZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2023

[Structured approach for infected prosthesis].

Markus Scharf, Amadeus Dominik Schraag, Marianne Ehrnsperger, Joachim Grifka

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Markus ScharfOrthopädische Klinik für die Universität Regensburg im Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Deutschland. m.scharf@asklepios.com.
Amadeus Dominik SchraagOrthopädische Klinik für die Universität Regensburg im Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Deutschland.
Marianne EhrnspergerOrthopädische Klinik für die Universität Regensburg im Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Deutschland.
Joachim GrifkaOrthopädische Klinik für die Universität Regensburg im Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Deutschland.
Asklepios Kliniken Bad Abbach · DEUniversity of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoprosthesis infections represent a major challenge for doctors and patients. Due to the increase in endoprosthesis implantation because of the increasing life expectancy, an increase in endoprosthesis infections is to be expected. In addition to infection prophylaxis, methods of infection control become highly relevant, especially in the group of geriatric and multimorbid patients. The aim is to reduce the high 1‑year mortality from prosthesis infections through a structured algorithm. ALGORITHM FOR PROSTHESIS INFECTIONS: Prosthesis infections can basically be divided into early and late infections. According to the criteria of the International Consensus Meeting, a late infection is defined as the occurrence more than 30 days after implantation. With respect to the planned approach, the (p)TNM classification offers an orientation. In the early postoperative interval the clinical appearance is crucial as in this phase neither laboratory parameters nor an analysis of synovial fluid show a high sensitivity. It is fundamental that, apart from patients with sepsis, environment diagnostics should be initiated. If a late infection is suspected, in addition to radiological diagnostics (X-ray, skeletal scintigraphy and if necessary, computed tomography, CT), laboratory (C-reactive protein, CRP, leukocytes, blood sedimentation, and if necessary, interleukin‑6, procalcitonin) and microbiological diagnostics (arthrocentesis with synovial analysis and microbiology) are indicated; however, in addition to the arthrocentesis result, the clinical appearance is crucial in cases where an exclusion cannot be confirmed by laboratory parameters. If an infection is confirmed, the treatment depends on the spectrum of pathogens, the soft tissue situation and the comorbidities, including a multistage procedure with temporary explantation and, if necessary, implantation of an antibiotic-containing spacer is necessary. A prosthesis preservation using the debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) regimen is only appropriate in an acute infection situation. Basically, radical surgical debridement should be carried out to reduce the pathogen load and treatment of a possible biofilm formation for both early and late infections. The subsequent antibiotic treatment (short or long interval) should be coordinated with the infectious disease specialists.

conclusionA structured approach for prosthesis infections oriented to an evidence-based algorithm provides a sufficient possibility of healing. An interdisciplinary approach involving cooperation between orthopedic and infectious disease specialists has proven to be beneficial. Surgical treatment with the aim of reducing the bacterial load by removing the biofilm with subsequent antibiotic treatment is of intrinsic importance.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipCommunicable DiseasesProsthesis-Related InfectionsAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansProstheses and ImplantsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic treatmentBiofilm formationEndoprosthesis infectionSpacersSurgical debridement

Identifiers

PMID37851164
OpenAlexW4387728302

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.