Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38662000›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Validity of a preoperative scoring system for surgical management of periprosthetic hip infection: one-stage vs. two-stage revision.

Kenichi Oe, Hirokazu Iida, Yosuke Otsuki, Takashi Toyoda, Fumito Kobayashi, Shohei Sogawa, Tomohisa Nakamura, Takanori Saito

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kenichi OeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan. oeken@hirakata.kmu.ac.jp.
Hirokazu IidaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Yosuke OtsukiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Takashi ToyodaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Fumito KobayashiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Shohei SogawaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Tomohisa NakamuraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Takanori SaitoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Kansai Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere are no widely accepted algorithms for determining optimal treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to confirm the validity of a previously published scoring system in a larger number of patients to support a rational surgical treatment strategy for periprosthetic hip infection. MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween February 2001 and December 2020, we performed 155 consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for PJI, with mean follow-up of 6 years. One-stage revision THA was performed in 56 hips and two-stage revision THA in 99 hips. Prosthesis survival from recurrent infection was determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, using implant removal as the endpoint. The pre-operative scoring system (full score of 12 points), including 6 essential elements, was retrospectively evaluated.

resultsThe 10-year survival rates were 98% for one-stage (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-100) and 87% (95% CI, 79-96) for two-stage revision THA. Multivariate Cox regression analysis provided a total preoperative score as an independent risk factor for implant removal (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.49; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity at the cut-off of 4 points on the scoring system were 80% and 91%, respectively. The average score for one-stage revision THA in successful and failed cases were 8.9 and 6.0, and for two-stage revision THA were 6.5 and 3.9, respectively. We found significant differences between successful cases in one- and two-stage revision THA (p < 0.05).

conclusionsThe preoperative scoring system was useful for managing PJI. One-stage revision THA is recommended in patients scoring ≥ 9 points, and meticulously performed two-stage revision THA is encouraged for patients scoring ≥ 4 points.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHip ProsthesisHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesInfectionOne-stage revisionScoring systemTotal hip arthroplastyTwo-stage revision

Identifiers

PMID38662000
OpenAlexW4395464844

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.