ArticleJSES international2026
Antibiotic prophylaxis in shoulder arthroplasty - increased number of early infection revisions in patients treated with clindamycin compared to cefuroxime.
Article in JSES international, 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: Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of early infection revision in patients given either clindamycin or cefuroxime antibiotic prophylaxis at time of surgery. Methods: We analyzed electronically recorded data from the Finnish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry from 2016 to 2021. The primary end point was revision due to infection within 1 year after surgery. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression to compare clindamycin and cefuroxime prophylaxis. Age and sex were included as covariates in the model. Because revision indications were frequently missing, sensitivity analyses were conducted using predefined time-based scenarios. Results: There were 3,595 registered primary shoulder arthroplasties during the study period. Of these, 1,382 (38%) received clindamycin and 1,050 (29%) cefuroxime prophylaxis; prophylaxis information was missing for 969 (27%) arthroplasties. There were 87 (2.4%) revisions within 1 year (among these 12 (14%) were recorded as infection-related, and in 63 cases (76%), the reason for revision was missing). Six infection revisions occurred in the clindamycin group and 1 in the cefuroxime group. In the analysis including only confirmed infections, the adjusted HR for infection revision with clindamycin compared with cefuroxime was 4.51 (confidence interval 0.54-37.56; Conclusion: Clindamycin antibiotic prophylaxis may result in more early infection revisions in shoulder arthroplasty when compared to cefuroxime prophylaxis. This finding suggests that cefuroxime may be preferred over clindamycin for routine prophylaxis, although missing data warrant cautious interpretation.
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.