Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38529230›Full record

ReviewAnnals of joint2023

Comparison of surgical treatment options in periprosthetic shoulder infections: a systematic review from 2016 to 2022.

Taha Aksoy, Abdurrahman Yilmaz, Ataberk Beydemir, Alper Yataganbaba, Gazi Huri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of joint, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Taha AksoyDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-8900-9858
Abdurrahman YilmazDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0060-6654
Ataberk BeydemirDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-9743-3253
Alper YataganbabaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Siverek State Hospital, Sanliurfa, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-8691-2606
Gazi HuriDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-7036-8455

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) management proves to be challenging because of patient morbidity, poor outcomes and need for reoperations. Different surgical treatment methods have been defined; however, a prominent method could not be determined. This systematic review investigated the most recent articles about various treatment modalities used in the surgical treatment of PSI to find the most effective method in terms of infection clearance and function. Methods: The keywords were searched using PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), and Google Scholar databases on September 30, 2022. Studies which report on operative treatment and have longer than 2-year follow-up were included in this review. Of the 555 studies in total, 16 were reviewed. The absence of symptomatic persistent infection (PI) during follow-up was regarded as a satisfactory outcome. Functional outcomes were analyzed according to the reported mean pooled Constant and Murley Score (CMS) and shoulder forward elevation degree (FE) for each treatment group. Results: A total of 339 patients (139 female, 197 male) with 342 shoulders from sixteen studies were included. The mean age of the patients was 67.5±3.8 years, mean follow-up duration was 53.3±19.5 months. In total, 217 shoulders were treated with two-stage revision, 59 were treated with one-stage revision, 37 were treated with definitive spacer, 23 were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), and 6 were treated with resection arthroplasty. The PI rate in whole treatment groups was 9.9%. The PI rate was significantly highest in the DAIR group (30.4%, P=0.001), while there was no significant difference between other treatment groups (P=0.23). CMS and FE were available for 156 and 190 shoulders, respectively. CMS was highest in the one-stage revision group (63.4±5.9, P=0.001), and FE was highest in the DAIR group (119.3°±28.5°, P=0.001). Conclusions: The revision surgeries (one-stage and two-stage revision) were more effective than the non-revision surgeries in functional outcomes. In terms of infection clearance, revision procedures were more successful. Surgeons should prefer revision methods over non-revision procedures when feasible.

Indexed as

periprosthetic infectionShoulder arthroplastysurgical treatmentsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38529230
PMCPMC10929292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.