4.6 Article

Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties After Solid Organ Transplant

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 1560-1564

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.047

关键词

solid organ transplant; revision total hip arthroplasty; revision total knee arthroplasty; periprosthetic joint infection; aseptic loosening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As solid organ transplant (SOT) patients' survival improves, the number undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing. Accordingly, the number of revision procedures in this higher-risk group is also increasing. The goals of this study were to identify the most common failure mechanisms, associated complications, clinical outcomes, and patient survivorship of SOT patients after revision THA or TKA. Methods: A retrospective review identified 39 revision procedures (30 revision THAs and 9 revision TKAs) completed in 37 SOT patients between 2000 and 2013. The mean age at revision surgery was 62 years with a mean follow-up of 6 years. Results: The most common failure mode for revision THA was aseptic loosening (10/30, 33%), followed by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; 7/30, 23%). The most common failure mode for revision TKA was PJI (5/9, 56%). There were 6 re-revision THAs for PJI (3/30; 10%) and instability (3/30; 10%). There were 2 reoperations after revision TKA, both for acute PJI (2/9; 22%). Final Harris Hip Scores significantly (P=.03) improved as did Knee Society Scores (P=.01). Estimated survivorship free from mortality at 5 and 10 years was 71% and 60% after revision THA and 65% and 21% after revision TKA, respectively. Conclusion: Revision THA and TKA after solid organ transplantation carry considerable risk for re-revision, particularly for PJI. Although SOT recipients demonstrate improved clinical function after revision procedures, patient survivorship at mid- to long-term follow-up is low. (C) 2016 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