4.4 Article

Proposal for a histopathological consensus classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 591-597

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2005.027458

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The introduction of clearly defined histopathological criteria for a standardised evaluation of the periprosthetic membrane, which can appear in cases of total joint arthroplasty revision surgery. Methods: Based on histomorphological criteria, four types of periprosthetic membrane were defined: wear particle induced type (detection of foreign body particles; macrophages and multinucleated giant cells occupy at least 20% of the area; type I); infectious type (granulation tissue with neutrophilic granulocytes, plasma cells and few, if any, wear particles; type II); combined type (aspects of type I and type II occur simultaneously; type III); and indeterminate type (neither criteria for type I nor type II are fulfilled; type IV). The periprosthetic membranes of 370 patients (217 women, 153 men; mean age 67.6 years, mean period until revision surgery 7.4 years) were analysed according to the defined criteria. Results: Frequency of histopathological membrane types was: type I 54.3%, type II 19.7%, type III 5.4%, type IV 15.4%, and not assessable 5.1%. The mean period between primary arthroplasty and revision surgery was 10.1 years for type I, 3.2 years for type II, 4.5 years for type III and 5.4 years for type IV. The correlation between histopathological and microbiological diagnosis was high (89.7%), and the interobserver reproducibility sufficient (85%). Conclusion: The classification proposed enables standardised typing of periprosthetic membranes and may serve as a tool for further research on the pathogenesis of the loosening of total joint replacement. The study highlights the importance of non-infectious, non-particle induced loosening of prosthetic devices in orthopaedic surgery (membrane type IV), which was observed in 15.4% of 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

4.4
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