ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
What Is the Role of Local Antimicrobial Protection for One-Stage Revision for Peri-Prosthetic Hip Infection?
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to investigate the effective role of local antimicrobial protection for one-stage cemented and cementless hip revision surgery. Twelve studies reporting the results of cemented single-stage procedures with a minimum two-year follow-up were reviewed. When pooling together the data, no infection recurrence was observed on average in 83.3% of the patients (a range of 75.0% to 100%). Only two papers included patients treated without the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement, with an average infection control of 95.9% in a total of 195 patients. This figure appears to be better than the 80.7% infection control obtained by pooling together all the remaining studies. Concerning cementless one-stage revision, a total of 17 studies, reporting on 521 patients, showed an average of 90.0% (range 56.8% to 100%) no infection recurrence at a minimum two-year follow-up. No comparative study investigated cementless revision with or without local antibacterial protection. The pooled data showed an average infection control of 86.7%, without the application of local antibacterials, compared to 90.1% to 100% with local antimicrobial protection, depending on the technology used. No statistical difference could be found, either considering local antibacterial strategies alone or pooled together. No side effects had been reported by any local antibacterial technique. Local antibacterial protection for one-stage hip revision surgery, although safe and largely performed in the clinical setting, appears to still rely mainly on experts' opinions with no prospective or comparative trial, hence no definitive conclusion can be drawn concerning its effective role in one-stage hip revision surgery.
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.