4.2 Article

Efficacy of debridement in hematogenous and early post-surgical prosthetic joint infections

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 863-869

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/ijao.5000029

关键词

Prosthetic joint infection; Staphylococcus aureus; Outcome; Debridement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purposes: To review patients with a hematogenous and early post-surgical prosthetic joint infection (PJI) due to S. aureus treated with debridement and retention of the implant and to compare their clinical characteristics and outcome. Methods: From January 2000 all patients with a prosthetic joint infection treated in a single-center were prospectively registered and followed-up. All potentially variables associated with outcome were recorded. For the present study, cases with a hematogenous or early post-surgical PJI due to S. aureus treated with debridement and at least 2 years of follow-up were reviewed. Cox regression model to identify factors associated with outcome were applied. Results: 12 hematogenous and 53 early post-surgical PJI due to S. aureus were included. Number of patients presenting with fever, leucocyte count, C-reactive protein concentration, and the number of bacteremic patients were significantly higher in hematogenous infections while the number of polymicrobial infections was lower in hematogenous than in early post-surgical infections. The global failure rate in hematogenous and early post-surgical PJI was 58.7% and 24.5%, respectively (p=0.02). The Cox regression model identified hematogenous infections (OR: 2.57, CI95%: 1.02-6.51, p=0.04) and the need of a second debridement (OR: 4.61, CI95%: 1.86-11.4, p=0.001) as independent predictors of failure. Conclusion: Hematogenous infections were monomicrobial and had more severe symptoms and signs of infection than early post-surgical PJI. Hematogenous PJI due to S. aureus, using debridement with implant retention, had a worse outcome than early post-surgical infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据