Literature DB >> 30906119

Two-stage revisions of infected hip replacements: Subspecialisation and patient-reported outcome measures.

Hosam E Matar1, Paula Stritch2, Nicholas Emms3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision arthroplasty remains the gold standard for managing infected hip replacements. Subspecialisation, high-volume hospitals and surgeons have been linked to improved clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes of 2-stage revision infected hip replacements of a subspecialist surgeon.
METHODS: Consecutive single surgeon series of 2-stage revisions of infected total hip replacements in a district genearl hospital settings with minimum 2 years follow up using clinical and patient-reported outcome measures.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients were included with average follow up of 5 years (range 2-9 yrs). Average age was 63 yrs (range 30-75), osteoarthritis was the underlying diagnosis in 65%, 31% had previous hip surgeries prior to index hip replacements. Two-thirds presented with chronic infections, staph aureus was isolated in 55%. Infection eradication rate at final follow up was 96.5% (1 reinfection). Overall complication rate was 13.8% (1 dislocation, 1 reinfection, 2 post-op wound haematoma requiring wash-outs). Mean patients reported outcome measures at final follow up were WOMAC hip score 76.3 (SD 13.6) (range 39.1-94.5); Oxford hip score 35.4 (SD 7.7) (range 17-45); and Hip disability & osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) 76 (SD 12.5) (range 41.9-92.5) suggesting satisfactory patient-reported outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates successful clinical outcomes and high infection-eradication rate achieved within district general hospital settings. Our experience suggests that comparable outcomes to tertiary centres in managing periprosthetic joint infections can be achieved in district general hospital settings through a local pathway of subspecialty trained arthroplasty surgeons within a local multidisciplinary MDT approach and adequate microbiology support.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2-stage revisions; District general hospital; Periprosthetic joint infection; Total hip replacement

Year:  2019        PMID: 30906119      PMCID: PMC6406174          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  19 in total

1.  The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties.

Authors:  S McConnell; P Kolopack; A M Davis
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2001-10

2.  A comparison of total hip and knee replacement in specialty and general hospitals.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Brian Wolf; Jeffrey N Katz; Gary E Rosenthal
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; Benjamin Zmistowski; Elie F Berbari; Thomas W Bauer; Bryan D Springer; Craig J Della Valle; Kevin L Garvin; Michael A Mont; Montri D Wongworawat; Charalampos G Zalavras
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis.

Authors:  Christopher F Wolf; Ning Yan Gu; Jason N Doctor; Paul A Manner; Seth S Leopold
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Charlotte B Phillips; John A Baron; Anne H Fossel; Nizar N Mahomed; Jane Barrett; Elizabeth A Lingard; William H Harris; Robert Poss; Robert A Lew; Edward Guadagnoli; Elizabeth A Wright; Elena Losina
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2003-02

6.  Relation between hospital orthopaedic specialisation and outcomes in patients aged 65 and older: retrospective analysis of US Medicare data.

Authors:  Tyson P Hagen; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Peter Cram
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-02-11

7.  Hip fracture outcomes: does surgeon or hospital volume really matter?

Authors:  James A Browne; Ricardo Pietrobon; Steven A Olson
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2009-03

8.  Case mix and outcomes of total knee replacement in orthopaedic specialty hospitals.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Benjamin E Bierbaum; Elena Losina
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 9.  Orthopaedic procedure volume and patient outcomes: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Nina Shervin; Harry E Rubash; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Anna K Nilsdotter; L Stefan Lohmander; Maria Klässbo; Ewa M Roos
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2003-05-30       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip.

Authors:  Dominik Adl Amini; Chia H Wu; Carsten Perka; Henrik C Bäcker
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.067

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.