ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Variations in clinical practice of one-stage septic revisions in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: an international questionnaire study.
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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent studies have increasingly provided evidence that one-stage septic revisions for hip and knee are a safe treatment option for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in selected patients. However, there is still a wide treatment variation concerning indications and execution among different practices. This study aimed to describe these differences.
methodsWe set out an online questionnaire among members of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) in September 2023. The questionnaire consisted of questions investigating indications, execution, and preferences regarding one-stage hip and knee septic revisions. Descriptive analysis was performed of all results and Chi-squared tests were used to test for differences in opinions between subgroups of respondents.
resultsSixty-five orthopaedic revision arthroplasty surgeons completed the questionnaire. 68% prefer to standardly perform two-stage revisions and only do one-stage revisions in selected patients. However, there was no consensus on which (contra-)indications should be used to select these patients. The most important reason to not perform one-stage revisions was fear of a higher reinfection risk, partly due to inconclusive literature. There was also no consensus on which perioperative antimicrobial measures should be applied.
conclusionsNotable differences in indications for and execution of one-stage septic revisions persist. We encourage others to share their experiences with this procedure. Moreover, clinical trials should be undertaken to provide stronger evidence for the safety of one-stage septic revisions and to provide clear and uniform guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39718577What 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.