4.6 Article

Have Periprosthetic Hip Infection Rates Plateaued?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 2244-2247

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.027

关键词

periprosthetic joint infection; revision total hip arthroplasty; volume; rates; SPARCS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although the number of revision cases is increasing, the prevalence of PJI as an indication for revision surgery, and the variability of this indication among surgeons and hospitals, is unclear. Methods: The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System was used to identify 33,582 patients undergoing revision THA between 2000 and 2013. PJI was identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes. Volume was defined using mean number of revision THAs performed annually by each hospital and surgeon. Results: PJI was the indication for 13.0% of all revision THAs. The percentage of revision THAs for PJI increased between years 2000 and 2007 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, P <.001), but decreased between years 2008 and 2013 (OR = 0.96, P = .001). Compared to medium-volume hospitals, the PJI burden at highvolume hospitals decreased during years 2000-2007 (OR= 0.58, P <.001) and 2008-2013 (OR = 0.57, P <.001). Compared to medium-volume surgeons, the PJI burden for high-volume surgeons increased during years 2000-2007 (OR = 1.39, P <.001), but did not differ during years 2008-2013 (P = .618). Conclusion: The burden of PJI as an indication for revision THA may be plateauing. High-volume institutions have seen decreases in the percentage of revisions performed for PJI over the complete study duration. Specific surgeon may be associated with the plateauing in PJI rates as high-volume surgeons in 2008-2013 were no longer found to be at increased risk of PJI as an indication for revision THA. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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