ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Routine intraoperative infection testing in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision: a matched cohort retrospective study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeriprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) complicate 1-2% of primary and up to 4% of revision arthroplasties, and their diagnosis remains challenging due to the lack of a diagnostic gold standard. Differentiating PJI from aseptic failure is particularly difficult in low-grade or biofilm-related infections. Routine intraoperative microbiological screening is not recommended in presumed aseptic revisions. This study aimed to evaluate the association between routine intraoperative microbiological screening and implant survival in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty. A secondary objective was to identify preoperative predictors of unexpected PJIs.
methodsRetrospectively collected data of patients undergoing presumed aseptic THA and TKA revisions between 2013 and 2019 were included. Two matched cohorts were compared: a screened group (2016-2019) undergoing routine intraoperative microbiological sampling, and an unscreened one (2013-2015) without systematic screening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank testing assessed overall and infection-free survival. Univariate conditional logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses evaluated potential associations between preoperative serum markers and unexpected PJI.
resultsA total of 559 patients were included, of whom 295 underwent screening and 264 did not. Unexpected infections occurred in 20.3% (n = 60) of screened patients. No significant differences in implant survival were observed between groups. Although overall and infection-free survival were numerically higher in the screened cohort, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.168 and p = 0.118, respectively). Stratified analyses by joint and failure mechanism showed comparable findings. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were associated with unexpected PJI (p = 0.004 and p = 0.046), but ROC analysis suggested limited discrimination of individual markers, whereas a combined serum model improved diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.833).
conclusionsRoutine intraoperative microbiological screening in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty was not associated with a significant improvement in implant survival. Future studies should investigate whether selective screening improves outcomes. Level III retrospective cohort study.
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.