ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Can
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prosthetic loosening and infection are still common complications after joint replacement. Over the past few years, single-photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT/CT) was widely used and showed unique value based on the combination of anatomic and metabolic information of foci. However, its performance in differentiating between prosthetic loosening and periprosthetic infection after joint replacement is still the focus of clinicians and deserves further investigation. Purpose: This retrospective study was aimed to determine whether bone scintigraphy combined with SPECT/CT still can differentiate prosthetic infection from loosening in patients after joint replacement. The differential efficacy in hip and knee prosthesis was also analyzed. Blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection were also evaluated. Patients and methods: Data sets of 74 prosthetic joints (including knees and hips), with suspected prosthetic loosening or infection between 2015 and 2021, were evaluated. Besides the results of nuclear imaging, X-ray images and serum biomarker were also recorded. Telephone follow-up and revision surgery after SPECT/CT were used as a gold standard. The sensitivity and accuracy of different imaging modalities were calculated by Chi-square test. The diagnostic efficacy of imaging methods and serum biomarkers were then analyzed by the area under curve (receiver operating characteristic curves, ROC) in SPSS 26. Results: In all, 47 joints (14 knees and 33 hips) were confirmed as aseptic loosening, while 25 joints (18 knees and 7 hips) were confirmed as infection. The sensitivity and accuracy of SPECT combined with SPECT/CT imaging were the highest (92.86% and 87.84%, respectively). The differential efficacy of bone scintigraphy combined with SPECT/CT imaging was also better than any other single imaging modality. In the analysis of involved prosthesis, prosthetic loosening occurred more in hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis was easily infected ( Conclusions: Bone scintigraphy with hybrid SPECT/CT remains encouraging in differentiating prosthetic infection from loosening after joint replacement. The diagnostic efficacy of differentiation in hip prosthesis was better than knee. Serum biomarkers cannot be used alone to differentiate prosthetic infection from loosening.
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.