4.4 Article

Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection

期刊

EFORT OPEN REVIEWS
卷 4, 期 8, 页码 495-502

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003

关键词

eradication rate; functional outcome; periprosthetic joint infection; single-stage exchange; total knee replacement; two-stage exchange

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single-and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee. We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static. In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4 degrees in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8 degrees in the double-stage exchange group. Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two-stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs.

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

4.4
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