MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160930740 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.20.01559

Prevalence and Outcomes of Unexpected Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Presumed Aseptic Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2021· article· en· W3160930740 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. Neufeld, Brent A. Lanting, Michael Shehata, James L. Howard, Steven J. MacDonald, Matthew G. Teeter, Edward M. Vasarhelyi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAseptic processingConfidence intervalImplantCohortSurgeryProportional hazards modelPopulationArthroplastyInternal medicineSurvival analysisTotal hip arthroplastyClinical endpointCohort studyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and outcomes of unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) of specimens taken during presumed aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of UPC and infection-free implant survival in this patient population. Secondary aims included identifying factors associated with subsequent infection-related failure in patients with UPC. METHODS: We reviewed all THA revisions (n = 2,288) performed at our institution from 2006 to 2019. Presumed aseptic revision THAs with intraoperative culture(s) were eligible (n = 1,196), and those with UPC were included in a Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine the infection-free implant survival and in Cox regression analysis to identify factors associated with infection-related failure. RESULTS: UPC(s) were documented for 9.2% (110) of 1,196 aseptic THA revisions. The 2- and 5-year infection-free implant survival in the entire UPC cohort was 93.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 90.5% to 95.7%) and 86.8% (95% CI = 82.9% to 90.7%), respectively. The 2- and 5-year infection-free survival with failure due to infection with the same microorganism as identified in the UPC as the end point was 95.8% (95% CI = 93.7% to 97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI = 91.7% to 96.9%), respectively. Subsequent infection-related failures caused by the same microorganism as identified in the UPC were more likely to occur after revisions with ≥2 UPCs than after those with 1 UPC (p = 0.024). Revision due to adverse metal reaction was a risk factor for subsequent infection-related failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 14.49, 95% CI = 2.69 to 78.04). Patients with a single UPC who were not treated with antibiotics had no subsequent periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) caused by the same microorganism as identified in the UPC. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of UPC was 9.2%, and the infection-free implant survival in patients with UPC is encouraging. Implant survival free of PJI caused by the same microorganism as identified in the UPC was excellent. Aseptic revision for adverse metal reaction was a risk factor for subsequent PJI in patients with UPC. No patient with a single UPC who was not treated with antibiotics developed PJI caused by the UPC-identified microorganism, suggesting that in the absence of other signs of infection a single UPC does not warrant antibiotic treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207