4.6 Article

Detailed Revision Risk Analysis after Single- vs. Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Retrospective Tertiary Center Analysis

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10101177

关键词

periprosthetic joint infection; PJI; single-stage revision TKA; two-stage revision TKA; revision risk; rTKA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared single- and two-stage revision surgeries for periprosthetic joint infection in knee arthroplasty. The results showed no significant difference in implant survival rates and revision rates between the two groups, but a tendency towards higher reinfection rates in single-stage surgery. Difficult-to-treat organisms and implant types were found to be associated with higher reinfection rates.
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains one of the most common causes of revision knee arthroplasty. Controversy continues to surround the proper operative technique of PJI in knee arthroplasty with single- or two-stage replacement. Significant variations are seen in the eradication rates of PJI and in implant survival rates. This detailed retrospective analysis of a single tertiary center is intended to provide further data and insight comparing single- and two-stage revision surgery. A retrospective analysis of all revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries from 2013 to 2019 was performed and screened with respect to single- or two-stage TKA revisions. Single- and two-stage revisions were analyzed with regard to implant survival, revision rate, microbiological spectrum, and other typical demographic characteristics. A total of 63 patients were included, with 15 patients undergoing single-stage revision and 48 patients undergoing two-stage revision. The mean follow-up time was 40.7 to 43.7 months. Statistically, no difference was found between both groups in overall survival (54.4% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.68) and implant survival with respect to reinfection (71.4% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.48). Further, high reinfection rates were found for patients with difficult-to-treat organisms and low- to semi-constrained implant types, in comparison to constrained implant types. A statistically comparable revision rate for recurrence of infection could be shown for both groups, although a tendency to higher reinfection rate for single-stage change was evident. The revision rate in this single-center study was comparably high, which could be caused by the high comorbidity and high proportion of difficult-to-treat bacteria in patients at a tertiary center. In this patient population, the expectation of implant survival should be critically discussed with patients.

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

4.6
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