Literature DB >> 30794230

Infection After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A High Risk of Subsequent Complications.

Nicholas M Hernandez1, Stephen M Petis, Arlen D Hanssen, Rafael J Sierra, Matthew P Abdel, Mark W Pagnano.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty restores function and improves pain in appropriately selected patients. Scant evidence exists regarding the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What was the overall survivorship free from reinfection? (2) What is the survivorship free of all-cause revision? (3) What are the Knee Society scores (KSS) and complications after surgical treatment of UKA PJI?
METHODS: This retrospective study with data drawn from a longitudinally maintained institutional registry identified 15 UKA PJIs between 1992 and 2014. The median age at PJI diagnosis was 58 years (range, 41-82 years), nine of 15 were men, and the median body mass index was 29 kg/m (range, 23-36 kg/m). Ten patients (10 of 15) satisfied major Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria. There were five patients (five of 15) with early postoperative infections, five (five of 15) with acute hematogenous infections, and five (five of 15) with chronic PJIs. Two-stage exchange was performed in four patients with PJIs (four of 15), and débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) was performed in 11 patients (11 of 15) with PJIs. We performed Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis for reinfection and revision procedures. Thirteen patients had a minimum of 2 years' followup and were included in the clinical analysis. Median followup was 4 years (range, 2-6 years). We calculated KSS.
RESULTS: Infection-free survivorship was 71% at 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-96%). Treatment success was higher for patients undergoing two-stage exchange (100% at 5 years; 95% CI, 100%-100%) versus DAIR (61% at 5 years; 95% CI, 31%-92%). Four of 11 patients undergoing DAIR had developed a reinfection at final followup. Survivorship free of any revision was 49% at 5 years (95% CI, 19%-79%). One patient from the two-stage exchange cohort underwent femoral component revision for aseptic loosening 5 years after PJI treatment, and two patients from the DAIR group were converted to TKA for disease progression at a mean of 4 years. In patients with a minimum of 2 years' followup, median KSS improved from 73 (range, 50-93) before index UKA to 94 (range, 55-100; p = 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of UKA PJI with DAIR was associated with a lower infection-free survivorship at 5 years compared with two-stage exchange with conversion to TKA. Among those patients who were infection-free, a number needed reoperations for disease progression (in the DAIR group) or component loosening (in both groups). UKA PJI results in substantial morbidity, and patients with these infections should be followed closely for aseptic causes of failure in addition to infection recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30794230      PMCID: PMC6345290          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  18 in total

1.  New definition for periprosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2011-12

2.  Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age.

Authors:  A J Price; C A F Dodd; U G C Svard; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-11

3.  Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA.

Authors:  Bryan D Springer; Richard D Scott; Thomas S Thornhill
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  William G Hamilton; Matthew B Collier; Eshan Tarabee; James P McAuley; C Anderson Engh; Gerard A Engh
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision.

Authors:  Thomas J Aleto; Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; Philip M Faris; R Michael Meneghini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel L Riddle; William A Jiranek; Fred J McGlynn
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jared R H Foran; Nicholas M Brown; Craig J Della Valle; Richard A Berger; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: fate of two-stage reimplantation after failed irrigation and débridement for periprosthetic knee infection.

Authors:  J Christopher Sherrell; Thomas K Fehring; Susan Odum; Erik Hansen; Benjamin Zmistowski; Anne Dennos; Niraj Kalore
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  C Labruyère; V Zeller; L Lhotellier; N Desplaces; P Léonard; P Mamoudy; S Marmor
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 2.256

10.  The parameters affecting the success of irrigation and debridement with component retention in the treatment of acutely infected total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jae Gyoon Kim; Ji Hoon Bae; Seung Yup Lee; Won Tae Cho; Hong Chul Lim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2015-02-10
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Treatment patterns and failure rates associated with prosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.

Authors:  Joseph P Barbera; Ryan C Xiao; Christine S Williams; Jashvant Poeran; Calin S Moucha; Darwin D Chen; Brett L Hayden
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-09-14

2.  Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results.

Authors:  Luca Cavagnaro; Francesco Chiarlone; Lorenzo Mosconi; Andrea Zanirato; Matteo Formica; Giorgio Burastero
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Survival analysis of one-stage exchange of infected unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-center study with minimum 3 years follow-up.

Authors:  Hakan Kocaoğlu; Fabian Hennes; Hussein Abdelaziz; Michael E Neufeld; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-01-23

4.  Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for an Early Periprosthetic Infection After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Technical Note.

Authors:  Mohammed Anter Abdelhameed; Yaser E Khalifa; Hatem M Bakr; Mohammad Kamal Abdelnasser
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-07-31

5.  Concentration-Dependent Effects of Cobalt and Chromium Ions on Osteoarthritic Chondrocytes.

Authors:  Christoph Bauer; Christoph Stotter; Vivek Jeyakumar; Eugenia Niculescu-Morzsa; Bojana Simlinger; Manel Rodríguez Ripoll; Thomas Klestil; Friedrich Franek; Stefan Nehrer
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Is Not Associated With Increased Revision Rates in Obese Patients.

Authors:  Kevin F Purcell; Benjamin M Stronach; Marie Gene Almand; Doug Parsell; Trevor Pickering; R Kerk Mehrle; Craig Winkler; Jeff D Almand
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-06-23

7.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With a Lower Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cody S Lee; Edwin P Su; Michael B Cross; Alberto V Carli; David C Landy; Brian P Chalmers
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-07-20
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.