Literature DB >> 32229149

Reporting Outcomes of Treatment for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee and Hip Together With a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up is Reliable.

Chi Xu1, Timothy L Tan2, William T Li2, Karan Goswami2, Javad Parvizi2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although there is an increasing trend toward reporting the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty separately, it remains unknown whether joint-specific reporting is necessary for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) as sample sizes are already low, given its relatively rare occurrence. The aim of this study is to compare treatment outcomes of PJI occurring after knee and hip arthroplasty. Furthermore, we aim to establish the necessary follow-up time for an accurate reporting of PJI treatment outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 792 cases of hip and knee PJI treated with irrigation and debridement or two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2000 to 2017 was performed. Treatment failure was defined based on the Delphi method-based criteria. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated, and a log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in survivorship. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and a sensitivity analysis using propensity matching were performed. A two-piecewise linear regression model was used to examine the threshold effect of time after treatment on survival rates.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between hip and knee PJIs in overall survivorship (P = .71), or when stratified by irrigation and debridement (P = .39), or two-stage exchange arthroplasty (P = .59). There was also no difference by joint in the multivariate or sensitivity analysis. Survival rates had the most dramatic rates of decrease in the initial months after treatment of PJI but began to plateau after 1.09 years.
CONCLUSION: This study reveals no difference in treatment outcomes between knee and hip PJIs. In addition, given the difficulty with obtaining follow-up, we suggest that one-year follow-up is sufficient for an accurate reporting of treatment failure.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  follow-up; irrigation and debridement; joint-specific reporting; periprosthetic joint infection; treatment failure; two-stage exchange arthroplasty

Year:  2020        PMID: 32229149     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

1.  Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

Authors:  A C Steinicke; J Schwarze; G Gosheger; B Moellenbeck; T Ackmann; C Theil
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  The presence of a draining sinus is associated with failure of re-implantation during two-stage exchange arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandra S Gabrielli; Alan E Wilson; Richard A Wawrose; Malcolm Dombrowski; Michael J O'Malley; Brian A Klatt
Journal:  J Bone Jt Infect       Date:  2022-03-22

3.  Increased Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  Vishal Hegde; Daniel N Bracey; Roseann M Johnson; Douglas A Dennis; Jason M Jennings
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-12-15

4.  Potential Use of Adjuvant Bacteriophage Therapy With Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Surgery to Treat Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  James B Doub; Vincent Y Ng; Aaron Johnson; Anthony Amoroso; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; Eleanor Wilson
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 3.835

5.  Experiences during Switching from Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection.

Authors:  Guillem Navarro; Luis Lozano; Sergi Sastre; Rosa Bori; Jordi Bosch; Guillem Bori
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.