Observational studyInternational orthopaedics2026
Clinical outcomes of one-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: results from a single institution.
Observational study in International orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
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
purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty remains a devastating complication, and the optimal surgical approach is still debated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single-stage versus two-stage revision and to identify clinical or demographic factors associated with treatment failure.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital including 29 patients treated for shoulder PJI between 2010 and 2023. Patients underwent either one-stage (n = 15) or two-stage (n = 14) revision according to clinical and microbiological criteria, and the final choice of surgical strategy (one-stage vs. two-stage revision) was made at the discretion of the attending surgeon. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as infection eradication without further surgery or suppressive antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were pain and functional results measured with the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A standard statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline data of both groups and finding factors related to the primary outcome.
resultsBaseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Overall infection control was achieved in 83% of patients, nonetheless, the one-stage group showed a higher success rate compared with the two-stage group (93% vs. 71%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.169; OR:0.19(0.003,2.29)). Functional outcomes assessed by CMS and VAS did not differ significantly between groups, whereas SST scores were significantly better following one-stage revision (p = 0.006). Increased BMI and a higher number of previous surgeries tended to be associated with treatment failure.
conclusionSingle-stage revision achieved comparable infection control and better functional outcomes than two-stage revision, supporting its role as a reliable surgical option for shoulder PJI in appropriately selected patients, although it could be influenced by bias selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351768What 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.