ArticleActa orthopaedica2024
How good are surgeons at disclosing periprosthetic joint infection at the time of revision, based on pre- and intra-operative assessment? A study on 16,922 primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single versus dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip fracture arthroplasty: a cohort study of 56,434 hip arthroplasties from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Validation of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a cohort study on 423 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Optimizing the management of periprosthetic infections with artificial intelligence: current evidence and future directions.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Periprosthetic fractures around chronically infected total hip arthroplasties: a case series and pragmatic two-stage treatment framework.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2026Article
- Association of tourniquet use on short-term implant survival after primary total knee arthroplasty: a study of 24,249 knees from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Enhancing the data capture of periprosthetic joint infections in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry: validity assessment and incidence estimation.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Observational
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRevision due to infection, as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), is a surrogate endpoint to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to find the accuracy of the reported causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with PJI to see how good surgeons were at disclosing infection, based on pre- and intraoperative assessment. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe investigated the reasons for revision potentially caused by PJI following primary THA: infection, aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain only, reported to the NAR from surgeons in the region of Western Norway during the period 2010-2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on clinical assessment, treatment, biochemistry, and microbiological findings. PJI was defined in accordance with the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated.
results363 revisions in the NAR were eligible for analyses. Causes of revision were (reported/validated): infection (153/177), aseptic loosening (139/133), prolonged wound drainage (37/13), and pain only (34/40). The sensitivity for reported revision due to infection compared with PJI was 80%, specificity was 94%, and accuracy-the surgeons' ability to disclose PJI or non-septic revision at time of revision-was 87%. The accuracy for the specific revision causes was highest for revision due to aseptic loosening (95%) and pain only (95%), and lowest for revision due to prolonged wound drainage (86%).
conclusionThe accuracy of surgeon-reported revisions due to infection as representing PJI was 87% in the NAR. Our study shows the importance of systematic correction of the reported cause of revision in arthroplasty registers, after results from adequately taken bacterial samples.
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.