4.7 Article

Outcome of prosthetic joint infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The impact of medical and surgical therapy in 200 episodes

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 216-223

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/498507

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Prosthetic joint infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is a serious complication of total joint arthroplasty. Little information is available on the outcome of medical and surgical treatments of prosthetic joint infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a total hip or total knee arthroplasty infection evaluated at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) between 1 January 1969 and 31 December 1995. Results. A total of 200 first episodes of prosthetic joint infection in 160 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were diagnosed during the study period. Thirty-seven percent of prosthetic joint infection episodes were due to Staphylococcus aureus. Of these episodes, 23% and 19% were treated with debridement and retention of components and 2-stage exchange, respectively. The type of surgical procedure was the only analyzed clinical variable that was associated with treatment failure (P <.001). Rates of 5-year survival free of treatment failure for patients with prosthetic joint infection episodes treated with debridement and retention of components, 2-stage exchange, and resection arthroplasty were 32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21%-49%), 79% (95% CI, 66%-93%), and 61% (95% CI, 49%-74%), respectively. Conclusions. S. aureus is the most common pathogen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prosthetic joint infection. Two-stage exchange was used in only 19% of the prosthetic joint infection episodes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the study period, but it was associated with the best outcome. The variable most strongly associated with the outcome was the type of surgical procedure.

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