ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Validation of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a cohort study on 423 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Accurate reporting is essential for quality development and research based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Our study aimed to validate Norwegian orthopedic surgeons' reporting of reoperations for PJI.
methodsWe assessed detailed clinical, biochemical, and microbiological data on 423 patients reported to the NAR for reoperations after primary TKA performed in Western Norway in the period from 2010 to 2023. We used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition of PJI. For each cause of reoperation (including causes that could mimic PJI, such as aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain alone), we determined the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy.
resultsOf 423 reoperations, 170 were reported reoperations due to PJI. After validation, 94% (159 of 170) were confirmed to be due to PJI. Furthermore, 5% (13 of 253) of cases reported as reoperated due to causes other than deep infection were validated as PJI. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for PJI reporting were 92%, 96%, and 94%, respectively. Accuracy for aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain alone was 97%, 94%, and 98%, respectively.
conclusionThe accuracy of reporting of reoperations due to PJI is high, thereby affirming the quality of reoperation data concerning PJI submitted to the NAR. Our findings support the use of NAR data in quality development and research.
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.