ArticleSICOT-J2026
Unexpected positive intraoperative culture during supposed aseptic hip revision: Antibiotherapy is an effective and safe treatment. About 50 cases.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with unsuspected positive intraoperative cultures (UPC) is not well codified. There are conflicting results in the literature. No study reported the long-term outcomes between single or both component rTHA with UPC. The aim of this study was to compare the overall survival rate of single component revision to total in case of rTHA with UPC using an institutional registry database. The reinfection-free survival rate was assessed as secondary outcomes.
methodsPatients were selected from a PJI institutional registry of THA between March 2003 and May 2020. Fifty rTHA with UPC were finally included in the study: 26 in the both component revision group and 24 in the single component revision group. The mean age of the patients was 64.8 years (range: 30.6; 88.2), 36% (18/50) of the patients were women and with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.6 Kg/m2 (range: 19.6; 39.5). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare overall survival rate between groups.
resultsThe overall survival rate in our series of rTHA with UPC was 70.0% [56.1%-87.2%] at 10 years. Fourteen re-interventions were carried out during the follow-up period (28.0%, 14/50). There was no significant difference between groups (61.4% vs. 79.3% at 10 years, respectively in both and single rTHA, p = 0.76). At the last follow-up, three infections were observed (6%, 3/50): 1 relapse (33.4%) and 2 new infections (66.6%). There was no significant difference between groups (83.2% vs. 100.0% at 10 years, respectively in both and single component rTHA, p = 0.08).
conclusionAntibiotic therapy alone for UPC in a single component revision of a presumed aseptic THA is a safe and effective treatment. Therapeutic study level of evidence, level III retrospective 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.