Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924174›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025

Significant differences in the rate of periprosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty depending on the applied definition.

Laura Elisa Streck, Christian Manuel Sterneder, Lyubomir Haralambiev, Marco Brenneis, Yu-Fen Chiu, Friedrich Boettner

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Bacterial and host interactions inFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Laura Elisa StreckAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Christian Manuel SternederAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Lyubomir HaralambievAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Marco BrenneisAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Yu-Fen ChiuBiostats Core, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Friedrich BoettnerAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. doc@drboettner.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentiating periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) from aseptic failure is challenging in total joint arthroplasty. To date, there is no consensus about the most accurate criteria to diagnose PJI. The current study compares common diagnostic PJI criteria.

methods256 total hip and knee arthroplasties that underwent revision surgery between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively classified as PJI or non PJI according to the following definitions: 2011 Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), 2013 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), 2018 updated MSIS-criteria (MSIS-18), 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infections (ICM), 2021 European Bone and Joint Infections Society (EBJIS), Pro-Implant Foundation, and the surgeons' assessment at the time of surgery. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated with reference to (1) microbiological culture results, (2) MSIS-criteria, and (3) the surgeons' diagnosis. Results were compared between hip- and knee arthroplasties using Fisher's Exact- or Chi-square test, outcomes were compared between two criteria using Pearson correlation.

resultsPJI was diagnosed in 47.7% of cases applying MSIS-criteria, 49.2% for IDSA-criteria, 52.3% for MSIS-18 criteria, 55.5% for ICM-criteria, 62.1% for EBJIS-criteria, 67.2% for Pro-Implant-criteria, and 55.1% according to the surgeons' judgment. Pro-Implant-criteria showed the lowest concordance with microbiological cultures and a rate of 35.5% culture negative infections. ICM- and MSIS-18-criteria showed best concordance with the surgeons' diagnosis.

conclusionThe current study showed that the diagnosis of PJI is highly dependent on the applied diagnostic criteria. EBJIS- and Pro-Implant-criteria classified more cases as PJI compared to other diagnostic criteria. Care should be taken to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially if low synovial white blood cell thresholds are applied as definite criteria to diagnose PJI.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCulture negative infectionEBJISIDSAMSISPeriprosthetic joint infection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.