Literature DB >> 30193387

Similar Outcomes of Two-Stage Revisions for Infection and One-Stage Revisions for Aseptic Revisions of Knee Endoprostheses.

Christian Konrads1,2, Arno Franz1, Maik Hoberg1, Maximilian Rudert1.   

Abstract

Two-stage revision knee arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the most widely performed procedure for infected knee arthroplasties. The clinical outcome of this type of surgery compared with aseptic joint revision with exchange of tibial and femoral components is still controversial. Therefore, we analyzed clinical outcomes of septic two-stage revisions compared with aseptic one-stage revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). In a retrospective study, we assessed 135 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision for septic TKA (52 patients) and one-stage aseptic total knee revision arthroplasty (83 patients). The average follow-up was 26.1 months for the aseptic group and 26.5 months for the septic group. For clinical evaluation, we used the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Kujala score, Turba score, and the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Postoperative pain level was determined using the visual analog pain scale. The surgeries were performed 51 months (aseptic group) and 24 months (septic group) after primary TKA on average. The main indications for aseptic revision surgeries were instability (40%), aseptic loosening (22.4%), anterior knee pain due to pathologies of the patella (11.8%), or material wear (5.9%). In the clinical outcome, patients achieved 124.8 points in the aseptic group and 105.4 points in the septic group in the Knee Society Score. The Oxford Knee Score revealed 29.9 points for the aseptic group and 33.9 points for the septic group. For the Kujala score, we found 53.2 points in the aseptic group and 48.5 points in the septic group. For the Turba score, we found 8.4 points in the aseptic group and 10.8 points in the septic group. The SF-36 (psychical) showed 52.2 versus 49.5 points and the SF-36 (physical) showed 36.5 versus 35.4 points. Mean level of persisting pain on the visual analog scale was 3.0 (aseptic group) and 3.5 (septic group). Performing septic two-stage or aseptic one-stage tibial and femoral revision knee arthroplasty showed similar clinical outcomes in relation to objective and subjective outcome measures. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 30193387     DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  4 in total

1.  Immobilization-Enhanced Eradication of Bacterial Biofilms and in situ Antimicrobial Coating of Implant Material Surface - an in vitro Study.

Authors:  Hien A Tran; Phong A Tran
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2019-11-29

2.  Do Prosthetic Joint Infections Worsen the Functional Ambulatory Outcome of Patients with Joint Replacements? A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

Authors:  Isabel Mur; Marcos Jordán; Alba Rivera; Virginia Pomar; José Carlos González; Joaquín López-Contreras; Xavier Crusi; Ferran Navarro; Mercè Gurguí; Natividad Benito
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-05

3.  Elution and Biomechanical Properties of Meropenem-Loaded Bone Cement.

Authors:  Li-Hong Wang; Ya-Dong Feng; Xiao-Wei Zhang; Long Jin; Fang-Lun Zhou; Guo-Hong Xu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 2.071

Review 4.  Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist.

Authors:  Shiraz A Sabah; Elizabeth A Hedge; Simon G F Abram; Abtin Alvand; Andrew J Price; Sally Hopewell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.