Two-Stage Treatment of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections With the Use of Gentamicin-Articulated Spacers: Success Rate and Predictors of Failure at the Minimum Seven-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship rates of 2-stage treatment with gentamicin-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulated knee spacer in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection and to identify risk factors associated with failure. Methods We conducted a retrospective study among 73 patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection after primary total knee replacement with articulated polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated spacers (Subiton, Medical Labs, Ind Argentina), performed in a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Clinical and functional assessment was performed with Knee Society Score and Western and Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify the variables that influenced the success and failure rates. Results We included 73 patients. There were 53 (71.3%) monomicrobial, 11 (15%) polymicrobial, and 10 (13.7%) negative cultures infections. The success and failure rates were 90.5% (n = 66) and 9.5% (n = 7), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified that age (odds ratio = 1.77; P = .039), greater erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior to the first stage (odds ratio = 1.04; P = .006), and polymicrobial infections (odds ratio = 7.32; P = .0003) were independent variables associated with failure. Conclusions Two-stage revision with polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated knee spacers is an effective strategy for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. Age, higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior first stage, and polymicrobial infections were independent risk factors for treatment failure.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".