4.7 Article

Analysis of Failed Two-Stage Procedures with Resection Arthroplasty as the First Stage in Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10215180

关键词

resection arthroplasty; two-stage procedure; risk-factors; PJI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with challenging periprosthetic hip joint infections undergoing resection arthroplasty as the first stage of a two-stage procedure, predicting the outcome requires consideration of multiple factors including Charlson comorbidity index, number of previous operations, age, and culture results.
Resection arthroplasty can be performed as the first stage of a two-stage procedure in some patients with severe periprosthetic hip joint infections with poor bone stock. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate factors associated with the subsequent failure or success of these patients. Between 2011 and 2020; in 61 (26.4%) of 231 patients who underwent a two-stage protocol of periprosthetic hip joint infections; no spacer was used in the first stage. The minimum follow-up period was 12 months. Patient's demographics and various infection risk factors were analyzed. In total, 37/61 (60.7%) patients underwent a successful reimplantation, and four patients died within the follow-up period. Patients within the failure group had a significantly higher Charlson comorbidity index (p = 0.002); number of operations prior to resection arthroplasty (p = 0.022) and were older (p = 0.018). Failure was also associated with the presence of a positive culture in the first- and second-stage procedures (p = 0.012). Additional risk factors were persistent high postoperative CRP values and the requirement of a negative-pressure wound therapy (p & LE; 0.05). In conclusion, multiple factors need to be evaluated when trying to predict the outcome of patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as the first stage of a two-stage procedure in patients with challenging periprosthetic hip joint 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

4.7
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