ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Periprosthetic joint infection caused by Brucella following total joint arthroplasty.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brucellosis is a common zoonotic infection that imposes a substantial economic burden on China, particularly in Xinjiang. This study aims to discuss the treatment of Brucella infection following total joint arthroplasty and evaluate its therapeutic effectiveness. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series analyzing 8 patients who developed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) due to Brucella after arthroplasty in our department between March 2009 and March 2019. The age range of these patients was 55-79 years, with an average age of 65.6 ± 1 year. Various parameters, including the Harris hip score (HHS), knee range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain assessment, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) level, were assessed before and after the revision surgery. Postoperative x-rays were used to assess the curative effect of revision surgery. Results: All patients experienced pain and elevated ESR levels. However, none of these patients exhibited deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or nerve damage. Additionally, no skin sinuses were detected. All infected patients underwent revision surgery subsequent to initial total joint arthroplasty. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 30 months, with an average duration of 14 ± 0.5 months. After revision surgery, both HHS and Harris score assessments, as well as x-rays, were conducted to evaluate the curative effect. No cases of aseptic loosening or prosthesis fracture occurred during or after the revision operation, and no recurrence of infection were observed. The average knee ROM improved to 90 ± 3°. Conclusions: Recent clinical findings indicate that systemic antibiotic chemotherapy combined with surgical techniques is effective in treating patients following total joint arthroplasty. Revision surgery significantly improves joint function and alleviates pain.
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.