Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detection of Prosthetic Hip Infection at Revision Arthroplasty by Immunofluorescence Microscopy and PCR Amplification of the Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene

Open access
Tunney, Michael M., Patrick, Sheila, Curran, Martin D., Ramage, Gordon, Hanna, Donna, Nixon, James R., Gorman, Sean P., Davis, Richard I., Anderson, Neil·1999·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

In this study the detection rates of bacterial infection of hip prostheses by culture and nonculture methods were compared for 120 patients with total hip revision surgery. By use of strict anaerobic bacteriological practice during the processing of samples and without enrichment, the incidence of infection by culture of material dislodged from retrieved prostheses after ultrasonication (sonicate) was 22%. Bacteria were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy in 63% of sonicate samples with a monoclonal antibody specific for Propionibacterium acnes and polyclonal antiserum specific for Staphylococcus spp. The bacteria were present either as single cells or in aggregates of up to 300 bacterial cells. These aggregates were not observed without sonication to dislodge the biofilm. Bacteria were observed in all of the culture-positive samples, and in some cases in which only one type of bacterium was identified by culture, both coccoid and coryneform bacteria were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy. Bacteria from skin-flake contamination were readily distinguishable from infecting bacteria by immunofluorescence microscopy. Examination of skin scrapings did not reveal large aggregates of bacteria but did reveal skin cells. These were not observed in the sonicates. Bacterial DNA was detected in 72% of sonicate samples by PCR amplification of a region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene with universal primers. All of the culture-positive samples were also positive for bacterial DNA. Evidence of high-level infiltration either of neutrophils or of lymphocytes or macrophages into associated tissue was observed in 73% of patients. Our results indicate that the incidence of prosthetic joint infection is grossly underestimated by current culture detection methods. It is therefore imperative that current clinical practice with regard to the detection and subsequent treatment of prosthetic joint infection be reassessed in the light of these results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.37.10.3281-3290.1999

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Tunney, M. M., Patrick, S., Curran, M. D., Ramage, G., Hanna, D., Nixon, J. R., Gorman, S. P., Davis, R. I., & Anderson, N.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1999-10
Volume
37
Issue
10
Pages
3281-3290
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2095697431
Cited by
455
References
29
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detection of Prosthetic Hip Infection at Revision Arthroplasty by Immunofluorescence Microscopy and PCR Amplification of the Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.37.10.3281-3290.1999
The paper
Tunney, M. M., Patrick, S., Curran, M. D., Ramage, G., Hanna, D., Nixon, J. R., Gorman, S. P., Davis, R. I., & Anderson, N. (1999). Detection of Prosthetic Hip Infection at Revision Arthroplasty by Immunofluorescence Microscopy and PCR Amplification of the Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.37.10.3281-3290.1999

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.