Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
JBJI
Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-11-591-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-11-591-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
Original full-length article
 | 
02 Oct 2026
Original full-length article |  | 02 Oct 2026

External validation of the KLIC score and development of a novel prediction model for debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention failure in prosthetic joint infection: a multicentre cohort study

Giulia Zumbo, Iris Martínez-Alemany, Jose Maria Bravo-Ferrer, Isabel Nieto Diaz De Los Bernardos, Julia Praena, Alfonso Del Arco, Enrique Nuño, Juan Enrique Corzo Delgado, Francisco Brun, Clara Natera, Alberto Romero Palacios, Beatriz Sobrino, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño, and María-Dolores del-Toro-López

Viewed

Total article views: 70 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
49 17 4 70 6 2 3
  • HTML: 49
  • PDF: 17
  • XML: 4
  • Total: 70
  • Supplement: 6
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 3
Views and downloads (calculated since 02 Oct 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 02 Oct 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 70 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 70 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 04 Oct 2026
Download
Short summary
Surgical debridement with implant retention (DAIR) fails in up to 55 % of prosthetic joint infections. In 224 patients, the Kidney, Liver, Index surgery, Cemented prosthesis and C-reactive protein (KLIC) score showed no discrimination of DAIR failure versus a new model (areas under the curve 0.53 vs 0.85), including comorbidity, C-reactive protein, revision prosthesis, time to surgery, and Gram-negative/polymicrobial infection. Three failure-risk groups were identified: 25.5 %, 45.6 %, and 87.9 %.
Read more
Share