ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Letter to the Editor regarding "Risk of surgical site infection associated with intraoperative smartphone use in a sterile cover during total knee arthroplasty".
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo critically examine the interpretation of the reported association between intraoperative smartphone use in a sterile cover and surgical site infection after total knee arthroplasty.
methodsWe appraised the study's infection definition and surveillance period, statistical precision, interpretation of nonsignificant findings, and reporting of the institutional infection-prevention bundle.
resultsDefining the outcome as periprosthetic joint infection within one year may capture events less plausibly attributable to intraoperative contamination. Reporting infections separately at 30 and 90 days would strengthen temporal and causal interpretation. The small number of events and wide confidence interval do not establish equivalence or non-inferiority in the absence of a prespecified margin and adequate statistical power. In addition, incomplete reporting of antimicrobial prophylaxis, decolonisation, skin preparation, perioperative glucose control, and operating-theatre conditions limits external validity.
conclusionThe findings are best interpreted as showing no detected increase in infection risk under a single institution's protocol rather than demonstrating the safety of intraoperative smartphone use. Future multicentre, protocolised non-inferiority studies should use a prespecified margin, adequately powered samples, standardised 90-day surveillance, and transparent reporting of co-interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747652What 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.