ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Unexpected positive cultures in revision total knee arthroplasty after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of motor imagery training on joint function recovery following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty using a spiked tibial cement spacer in infected total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnexpected positive cultures are defined as a single positive culture in intraoperative samples taken during revision surgery after prosthetic joint infection was preoperatively ruled out. This study aims to determine the prevalence of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). As a secondary objective, this study aims to compare the re-intervention rate in this specific group, between UPC and non-UPC patients. The hypothesis is that the UPC prevalence in patients who undergo a revision TKA after UKA is not higher than in other TKA revision cases and this does not increase the risk of re-intervention.
methodsThis is a retrospective study where all patients who underwent a UKA revision from January 2016 to February 2023 in a high-volume arthroplasty centre, were analyzed. Unexpected positive culture prevalence in this group of patients was obtained.
resultsDuring the included period, 270 UKA revision surgeries were performed. Eight cases had at least two positive cultures and were therefore excluded. The final analysis included 262 patients. Of these, 8 (3.05%) patients presented UPCs and the isolated microorganisms were low-virulence organisms. None of the UPC patients received any treatment. No statistical differences were found between UPC and non-UPC groups in the analyzed variables.
conclusionThe prevalence of unexpected positive cultures in patients following revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is lower than in patients who undergo a revision of total knee arthroplasty. In UKA patients a UPC does not seem to increase the risk of a re-intervention, so it can be safely ignored if ICM criteria are not met.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38709260What 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.