4.6 Article

One-year mortality and Periprosthetic infection rates after Total knee Arthroplasty in Cancer patients: a population-based cohort study

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4329-2

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty; Cancer survivors; Survival rate; revision rate

Categories

Funding

  1. Center for Database Research, E-DA Healthcare Group, E-DA hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan [EDAHP-103048]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Knowledge on periprosthetic infection and mortality rate following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential for justifying this treatment in patients with cancer; however, relevant data from population-based studies are lacking. Therefore, we examined 1-year periprosthetic infection, mortality, and 5-year relative survival rates in cancer patients who underwent TKA. Methods: This is a population based cohort study based on analysis of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We enrolled a total of 2294 cancer patients and 131,849 patients without cancer (control group) who underwent TKA between January 1,1997, and December 31,2011. All patients were followed until death, infection, withdrawal from the National Health Insurance, or December 31,2012. Results: The periprosthetic knee joint infection rate in cancer patients (1.73%) was not significantly higher than that in the control group (1.87%). However, the 1 year mortality rate was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the cancer group (4.10%) than in the control group (1.66%). The overall 5 year survival rate was 93.10% as compared with those without cancers. Conclusion: Low periprosthetic knee joint infection rates and high 5-year relative survival rates indicate the feasibility of TKA in cancer patients. However, the surgeon should take into account a higher mortality rate in the first year following TKA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available