Short-term results following two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection

J. D. Plessis, R. Greeff, V. Singh, N. Fang, C. Frey
{"title":"Short-term results following two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection","authors":"J. D. Plessis, R. Greeff, V. Singh, N. Fang, C. Frey","doi":"10.17159/2309-8309/2020/v19n2a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures are successful surgical procedures, with total hip arthroplasty being named the operation of the 20th century. With there being an estimated rate globally of periprosthetic joint infection of 1% for hips and 2% for knees, this minimal infection rate represents a large global concern. The successful management of periprosthetic joint infection remains controversial with multiple proposed strategies. Our aim is to present our short-term data for a two-stage revision protocol. \nMethods: A single centre retrospective review of an existing database starting from January 2013 and including April 2019 was conducted looking at patients having undergone two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection. The unit utilised a standard approach to two-stage revisions. Data was collected from the existing database to ascertain short-term success based on the Delphibased international multidisciplinary consensus criteria. \nResults: A total of 2 125 entries were reviewed from the database comprising 1 912 primary arthroplasty procedures. From all revision cases 19 patients were identified to have undergone a two-stage revision by our unit. Of these patients we managed to collect sufficient data to gauge treatment success in 12 patients. Of these 12 patients with a mean follow-up of 25.6 months, ten reported complete wound healing, pain improvement and no subsequent surgery. One patient demised from septic complications and one required subsequent arthrodesis which controlled the sepsis. \nConclusion: Our results showed a high infection eradication rate following our two-staged revision protocol despite frequent delays between first and second stages as a result of resource constraints and limitations. \nLevel of evidence: Level 4","PeriodicalId":32220,"journal":{"name":"SA Orthopaedic Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"64-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2020/v19n2a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures are successful surgical procedures, with total hip arthroplasty being named the operation of the 20th century. With there being an estimated rate globally of periprosthetic joint infection of 1% for hips and 2% for knees, this minimal infection rate represents a large global concern. The successful management of periprosthetic joint infection remains controversial with multiple proposed strategies. Our aim is to present our short-term data for a two-stage revision protocol. Methods: A single centre retrospective review of an existing database starting from January 2013 and including April 2019 was conducted looking at patients having undergone two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection. The unit utilised a standard approach to two-stage revisions. Data was collected from the existing database to ascertain short-term success based on the Delphibased international multidisciplinary consensus criteria. Results: A total of 2 125 entries were reviewed from the database comprising 1 912 primary arthroplasty procedures. From all revision cases 19 patients were identified to have undergone a two-stage revision by our unit. Of these patients we managed to collect sufficient data to gauge treatment success in 12 patients. Of these 12 patients with a mean follow-up of 25.6 months, ten reported complete wound healing, pain improvement and no subsequent surgery. One patient demised from septic complications and one required subsequent arthrodesis which controlled the sepsis. Conclusion: Our results showed a high infection eradication rate following our two-staged revision protocol despite frequent delays between first and second stages as a result of resource constraints and limitations. Level of evidence: Level 4
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
假体周围关节感染的两阶段翻修后的短期结果
背景:髋关节和膝关节置换术是成功的外科手术,全髋关节置换术被称为20世纪的手术。据估计,全球髋关节假体周围关节感染的发生率为1%,膝关节为2%,这一最低感染率引起了全球的广泛关注。假体周围关节感染的成功管理仍然存在争议,提出了多种策略。我们的目的是为两阶段修订方案提供我们的短期数据。方法:对从2013年1月到2019年4月的现有数据库进行单中心回顾性分析,研究了因假体周围关节感染而接受两阶段翻修术的患者。该股采用两阶段修订的标准方法。从现有数据库中收集数据,以确定基于德尔菲国际多学科共识标准的短期成功。结果:从包含1912例原发性关节置换术的数据库中共回顾了2 125个条目。从所有翻修病例中,19例患者被确定接受了我们单位的两阶段翻修。在这些患者中,我们设法收集了足够的数据来衡量12例患者的治疗成功。在这12例平均随访25.6个月的患者中,10例报告伤口完全愈合,疼痛改善,没有后续手术。一名患者死于脓毒症并发症,一名患者需要随后的关节融合术来控制脓毒症。结论:我们的研究结果显示,尽管由于资源限制和限制,第一阶段和第二阶段之间经常出现延迟,但我们的两阶段修订方案的感染根除率很高。证据等级:四级
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SA Orthopaedic Journal
SA Orthopaedic Journal Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Fassier technique for correction of proximal femoral deformity in children with osteogenesis imperfecta Factors associated with dissemination and complications of acute bone and joint infections in children Low dislocation rate one year after total hip arthroplasty at a tertiary hospital in South Africa Functional outcome of free fibula grafting in benign non-reconstructable bone tumours involving the hand A survey on the educational value of an mHealth referral app for orthopaedics in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1