↓ Skip to main content

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. A. George, N. Logoluso, G. Castellini, S. Gianola, S. Scarponi, F. S. Haddad, L. Drago, C. L. Romano

Abstract

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I(2) = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 40%
Researcher 3 15%
Other 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#9,521,043
of 10,799,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,701
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,603
of 263,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#86
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,799,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,185 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.