Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39395987›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?

Jameel Suliman, Hamza Warda, Michel Samaan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors.

Jameel SulimanFaculty of Medicine, Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria. Jamilsuliman518@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1784-8492
Hamza WardaFaculty of Medicine, Al-Baath University, Homs, Syria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5971-0531
Michel SamaanProfessor of orthopedic surgery at the Faculty of Medicine, Al-Baath University, Homs, Syria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-7866

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is a complication that affects approximately 2-3% of patients. The management of this issue is complicated and expensive for both the patients and the healthcare system. Multiple management options are available including antibiotic suppressive therapy, surgical management, and salvage procedures. Surgical management is considered a popular option for treating PJI, with multiple available surgical techniques, including single-stage revision arthroplasty and two-stage revision arthroplasty among others. Two-stage revision has been considered the gold standard for treating PJI. This method consists of two surgical procedures with a time interval in between, the first procedure aims to eradicate the infection along with implanting either a static or a mobile spacer, while the second intervention aims to remove the spacer and implant a new prothesis. During the interval period the patient is closely monitored through a handful of laboratory tests and clinical signs that help in assessing the optimal time of undertaking the second stage. However, in recent years, the single-stage method has gained much attention for its comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Contrary to the two-stage method, the single-stage approach consists only of one procedure in which the old infected prosthesis is removed and a new one is implanted. Many articles have compared the two methods over the years but have not agreed on a particular approach to be more potent in eliminating infection and providing better outcomes. Plenty of questions are yet to be answered regarding the two methods, including the superior type of spacer, interim period duration, and single-stage revision inclusion criteria. We herein, aim to address these issues, highlighting recent advances in managing this morbid complication and discussing controversial topics in the staged procedures.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationHumansKnee ProsthesisPeriprosthetic joint infectionSingle-stage revision arthroplastyTwo-stage revision arthroplasty.

Identifiers

PMID39395987
PMCPMC11470652

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.