Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study.
Yannik Hanusrichter, Sven Frieler, Jan Gessmann, Martin Schulte, Martin Krejczy, Thomas Schildhauer, Hinnerk Baecker
{"title":"Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study.","authors":"Yannik Hanusrichter, Sven Frieler, Jan Gessmann, Martin Schulte, Martin Krejczy, Thomas Schildhauer, Hinnerk Baecker","doi":"10.1055/a-1562-2874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several treatment options for chronic periprosthetic joint infections have been published in the current literature, with an on-going discussion to determine effective management algorithms.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare outcomes of the two-stage exchange procedure in revision TKA prior to and after implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation treatment algorithm. The primary endpoints were defined as (i) revisions during the interval time, (ii) duration of the interval time and (iii) successful PJI eradication.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between 02/2013 and 09/2016, 122 patients were included in a single-centre cohort analysis. 55 patients were treated according to the previously used algorithm (K1) and 67 according to the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation algorithm (K2). A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was set as the inclusion criterion. Successful eradication of infection was defined in accordance with the consensus criteria by Diaz-Ledezma et al. RESULTS: Successful eradication was achieved in 42 (67%) patients in K1 and 47 (85.5%) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). The mean interval time was 88 days (range 51 - 353) in K1 and 52 days (range 42 - 126) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). In K1, a mean of 0.8 (range 0 - 6) revisions were necessary during the interval period compared with 0.5 (range 0 - 4) in K2 (p = 0.066).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT treatment algorithm led to significant improvement in the outcome of periprosthetic joint infections. During mid-term follow-up, infection eradication was highly successful, with decreases in the interval time as well as the number of revisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51219,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und Unfallchirurgie","volume":"161 3","pages":"260-270"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und Unfallchirurgie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1562-2874","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: Several treatment options for chronic periprosthetic joint infections have been published in the current literature, with an on-going discussion to determine effective management algorithms.
Objectives: To compare outcomes of the two-stage exchange procedure in revision TKA prior to and after implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation treatment algorithm. The primary endpoints were defined as (i) revisions during the interval time, (ii) duration of the interval time and (iii) successful PJI eradication.
Material and methods: Between 02/2013 and 09/2016, 122 patients were included in a single-centre cohort analysis. 55 patients were treated according to the previously used algorithm (K1) and 67 according to the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation algorithm (K2). A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was set as the inclusion criterion. Successful eradication of infection was defined in accordance with the consensus criteria by Diaz-Ledezma et al. RESULTS: Successful eradication was achieved in 42 (67%) patients in K1 and 47 (85.5%) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). The mean interval time was 88 days (range 51 - 353) in K1 and 52 days (range 42 - 126) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). In K1, a mean of 0.8 (range 0 - 6) revisions were necessary during the interval period compared with 0.5 (range 0 - 4) in K2 (p = 0.066).
Conclusion: Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT treatment algorithm led to significant improvement in the outcome of periprosthetic joint infections. During mid-term follow-up, infection eradication was highly successful, with decreases in the interval time as well as the number of revisions.
期刊介绍:
Das Forum für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie aus einer Hand
Aktuelles aus Klinik, Wissenschaft und Forschung
Ein unabhängiges Peer-Review-Verfahren sichert Qualität, Relevanz und Plausibilität der Daten
Modernes Layout: Klare Gliederung, farbige Abbildungen, strukturierte Tabellen
Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie aktuell: Berichte und Reportagen zu den wichtigsten Themen im Fach