ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Septic vs. aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: are scoring systems effective in communicating the nuances?
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. 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
introductionIn comparison to primary TKA, outcomes of revision TKA will always appear inferior. When trying to assess outcomes of revision TKA for PJI, a group of aseptic revisions can serve as a reliable control, as compared to primary TKA. Our primary aim was to compare functional outcomes of septic versus aseptic revisions by using 5 scoring systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 45 revision knee arthroplasty cases. Of the 45 cases, 17 belonged to the septic group and 28 to the aseptic group. The scores obtained were assessed for differences between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to assess the correlation between the PCS and MCS of the SF-36 score vs. other scores.
resultsThe mean WOMAC score in the septic group was 38.88 ± 6.35 and in the aseptic group was 44.96 ± 10.07. With regards to the SF-36 score, the RE component (role limitations due to emotional problems) showed a significant difference, being poorer in the septic group (51.06 ± 31.57) as compared to the aseptic group (69.18 ± 28.62). We found a higher incidence of rest pain and nocturnal pain in the septic group. None of the scoring systems showed correlation with the SF-36 score.
conclusionIn our study, there was a significant difference in the outcome of revision TKA based on etiology only with regards to the WOMAC score. Moreover, our study brings to the fore the importance of not just surgical management of patients with septic failure but also the importance of paying heed to the emotional and social problems encountered by these patients which has an impact on their outcome as a whole and diminishes their perception of benefit from revision surgery in spite of equivocal knee scores as compared to their counterparts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39904904What 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.