ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Infection management in hip arthroplasty: Comparative insights on revision strategies.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a major complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA), often necessitating revision surgery. Debate persists regarding the optimal approach between single-stage and two-stage revision strategies. Methods: This retrospective comparative study evaluated 60 patients (30 in each group) undergoing revision THA for chronic PJI. Patients were matched demographically, and outcomes were assessed over 24 months. Primary endpoints included infection recurrence and functional scores, including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Results: At 24-month follow-up, neither group demonstrated reinfection (0 % recurrence in both cohorts). VAS scores were slightly better in the single-stage group at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively (mean 1.9 vs 2.2 at 6 months, p = 0.24). The two-stage group had longer hospital stays and greater overall healthcare costs. Polymicrobial infections were more common in the two-stage cohort (20 % vs. 10 %), while 15 % of all cases were culture-negative. Staphylococcus aureus was identified as the primary pathogen in 46.7 % and 50.0 % of the respective groups. At 24 months, the Harris Hip Score averaged 85.4 ± 6.2 for single-stage compared to 83.3 ± 7.1 for two-stage revisions. Conclusion: Both revision strategies are viable for managing chronic PJI, with comparable reinfection rates. However, single-stage revision may offer faster pain relief and reduced resource utilization. Clinical decision-making should consider factors such as infection type, organism profile, patient comorbidities, and surgical expertise.
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.