Periprosthetic joint infection following hip hemiarthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years' follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. RESULTS: A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: 2022;3(12):924-932.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".