髋关节置换术术前感染风险评估--对三种有效风险量表可靠性的配对研究。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.52628/89.4.10486
A Manzotti, M Colizzi, D Brioschi, P Cerveri, M M Larghi, M Grassi
{"title":"髋关节置换术术前感染风险评估--对三种有效风险量表可靠性的配对研究。","authors":"A Manzotti, M Colizzi, D Brioschi, P Cerveri, M M Larghi, M Grassi","doi":"10.52628/89.4.10486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) represents one of the most devastating complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study is to assess the reliability of different PJI risk assessment scales between two matched pairs of THA groups. This study included 37 patients with PJI following THA performed between 2012 and 2020 (Group A). Each patient in this group was matched, based on sex, age, and follow-up duration, with a control patient who underwent the same surgical procedure without any septic complications (Group B) during the same period. Each patient's assessment included the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and a retrospective evaluation using three different preoperative, specific PJI risk assessment scales: the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) Preoperative Risk Calculator for PJI, the Mayo PJI Risk Score, and the KLIC-score. The two groups were statistically compared using descriptive analyses, both for binomial data and numerical variables. Statistically significant higher values were observed in the preoperative ASA score and surgical time in Group A. Statistically different higher scores were determined only with the ICM risk calculator score in Group A. No significant differences were found using the KLIC score and Mayo score between the two groups. We emphasize the reliability of the ASA score as a nonspecific preoperative assessment scale for PJI. The ICM risk calculator was confirmed as a reliable, specific preoperative assessment scale for PJI, suggesting its routine adoption in THA clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preoperative infection risk assessment in hip arthroplasty a matched-pair study of the reliability of 3 validated risk scales.\",\"authors\":\"A Manzotti, M Colizzi, D Brioschi, P Cerveri, M M Larghi, M Grassi\",\"doi\":\"10.52628/89.4.10486\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) represents one of the most devastating complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study is to assess the reliability of different PJI risk assessment scales between two matched pairs of THA groups. This study included 37 patients with PJI following THA performed between 2012 and 2020 (Group A). Each patient in this group was matched, based on sex, age, and follow-up duration, with a control patient who underwent the same surgical procedure without any septic complications (Group B) during the same period. Each patient's assessment included the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and a retrospective evaluation using three different preoperative, specific PJI risk assessment scales: the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) Preoperative Risk Calculator for PJI, the Mayo PJI Risk Score, and the KLIC-score. The two groups were statistically compared using descriptive analyses, both for binomial data and numerical variables. Statistically significant higher values were observed in the preoperative ASA score and surgical time in Group A. Statistically different higher scores were determined only with the ICM risk calculator score in Group A. No significant differences were found using the KLIC score and Mayo score between the two groups. We emphasize the reliability of the ASA score as a nonspecific preoperative assessment scale for PJI. The ICM risk calculator was confirmed as a reliable, specific preoperative assessment scale for PJI, suggesting its routine adoption in THA clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.4.10486\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.4.10486","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

假体周围感染(PJI)是全髋关节置换术(THA)最具破坏性的并发症之一。本研究旨在评估两对匹配的 THA 组之间不同的 PJI 风险评估量表的可靠性。本研究纳入了 37 名在 2012 年至 2020 年期间接受全髋关节置换术(THA)的 PJI 患者(A 组)。根据性别、年龄和随访时间,该组的每位患者都与同期接受相同手术且未出现任何化脓性并发症的对照组患者(B 组)进行了配对。每位患者的评估包括美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分和使用三种不同的术前特定 PJI 风险评估量表进行的回顾性评估:国际共识会议(ICM)PJI 术前风险计算器、梅奥 PJI 风险评分和 KLIC 评分。采用描述性分析对两组患者的二项式数据和数字变量进行了统计比较。在统计学上,A 组的术前 ASA 评分和手术时间值较高,而只有 A 组的 ICM 风险计算器评分较高。我们强调 ASA 评分作为 PJI 非特异性术前评估量表的可靠性。ICM 风险计算器被证实是一种可靠、特异的 PJI 术前评估量表,建议在 THA 临床实践中常规采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Preoperative infection risk assessment in hip arthroplasty a matched-pair study of the reliability of 3 validated risk scales.

Peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) represents one of the most devastating complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study is to assess the reliability of different PJI risk assessment scales between two matched pairs of THA groups. This study included 37 patients with PJI following THA performed between 2012 and 2020 (Group A). Each patient in this group was matched, based on sex, age, and follow-up duration, with a control patient who underwent the same surgical procedure without any septic complications (Group B) during the same period. Each patient's assessment included the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and a retrospective evaluation using three different preoperative, specific PJI risk assessment scales: the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) Preoperative Risk Calculator for PJI, the Mayo PJI Risk Score, and the KLIC-score. The two groups were statistically compared using descriptive analyses, both for binomial data and numerical variables. Statistically significant higher values were observed in the preoperative ASA score and surgical time in Group A. Statistically different higher scores were determined only with the ICM risk calculator score in Group A. No significant differences were found using the KLIC score and Mayo score between the two groups. We emphasize the reliability of the ASA score as a nonspecific preoperative assessment scale for PJI. The ICM risk calculator was confirmed as a reliable, specific preoperative assessment scale for PJI, suggesting its routine adoption in THA clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
3D quantitative CT study to assess rotator cuff muscle fatty infiltration. Alkaptonuric Ochronosis: A case-based review. Chronic regional pain syndrome following calcaneal fractures: what causes it and how may Vitamin C aid? Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements. Cost analysis of total knee arthroplasty surgeries in Turkey.
×
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