ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Advantages in orthopaedic implant infection diagnostics by additional analysis of explants.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImplant-associated infections are the most challenging complication in orthopaedics and trauma surgery as they often lead to long courses of illness and are a financial burden for the healthcare system. There is a need for fast, simple, and cheap identification of pathogens but the ideal detection method was not found yet. The work aims to test whether the detection of pathogens culturing the removed implant is more successful than from simultaneously taken tissue samples or punction fluid.
methodsImplants were removed due to infection, irritation, or loosening. Tissue samples and joint fluids were processed for bacterial growth in sterile conditions. Samples were incubated and checked for growth. Bacterial identification and antibiotic sensitivity testing were performed. Data were anonymized, and statistical analysis was done using Excel and SAS, employing tests like Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney-U, and Kruskal-Wallis. Ethical approval was obtained for this study.
resultsBetween February 2018 and April 2019, a total of 163 patients (175 cases) underwent orthopaedic implant removal for various reasons. 30 cases were not usable or analyzable due to missing or damaged reference material, so 145 cases could be evaluated due to study protocol. The range of detected bacteria was as expected and included low-virulent bacteria such as Micrococcus luteus and Corynebacteria. Pathogen detection by culture of the the explant´s was more sensitive (84.83%) than pathogen detection from tissue samples and punction fluid (64.14%, p<0.0001). Comorbidities did not play any role in the quality of detection but prior antibiotic treatment did influence the results of tissue diagnostics.
conclusionThis study showed with a higher frequency of bacterial detection of orthopedic explant´s surface compared to tissue samples or punction fluid. This may reduce the number of samples and cost but enhances the quality of orthopaedic implant-related infection diagnostics.
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.