Literature DB >> 33579256

One-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty - a randomized multicenter clinical trial study protocol.

Martin Lindberg-Larsen1,2, Anders Odgaard3, Charlotte Fredborg4, Henrik Morville Schrøder5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A two-stage prosthesis exchange procedure has been the gold standard in surgical treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty so far. This includes 2 surgeries/hospitalizations and an interim period of 2-3 months between surgeries with impaired health, functional status and quality of life of the patients. A one-stage exchange procedure holds many obvious advantages compared to the two-stage approach, but outcomes of a one-stage versus two-stage procedures have never been investigated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study is primarily to investigate time-adjusted differences in functional status of patients after one-stage versus two-stage revision. Secondary, to report time-adjusted differences in quality of life, complications (including re-revisions due to infection) and mortality.
METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, multi-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Seven Danish hospitals are currently participating in the study, but additional hospitals can enter the study if adhering to protocol. Ninety-six patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 10 years. The patients who are not able to participate in the randomized trial are followed in a parallel cohort study. PROM'S: Oxford Knee Score and EQ5D + EQ5D VAS questionnaires are completed preoperatively and sent out to the study participants at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively. In addition a tailor made cost questionnaire on the non-treating hospital resource use, community health and social service use, travel costs, time off work and informal care are sent out. DISCUSSION: If one of the two treatment alternatives is found superior in both domains of quality of life (both knee-specific and generic) and health economics, that treatment should be promoted. Other outcomes will open informed discussions about treatment strategies for periprosthetic knee infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The randomized trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03435679 , initial release date January 31, 2018 and the cohort study is registered with ID NCT04427943 , submitted January 8, 2020 and posted June 11, 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Infection; Knee arthroplasty; One-stage; PROM; Revision; Two-stage

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33579256      PMCID: PMC7881574          DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04044-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord        ISSN: 1471-2474            Impact factor:   2.362


  19 in total

1.  Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire. The effect of disease of the hip or lumbar spine on patients' perception of knee disability.

Authors:  W G Harcourt; S H White; P Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-04

2.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; D Murray; A Carr
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-01

3.  Microbiological diagnosis in revision of infected knee arthroplasties in Denmark.

Authors:  Martin Lindberg-Larsen; Frederik T Pitter; Marianne Voldstedlund; Henrik M Schrøder; Jens Bagger
Journal:  Infect Dis (Lond)       Date:  2017-07-08

4.  Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Heather Watson; Jordana K Schmier; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Oxford knee score and SF-36: translation & reliability for use with total knee arthroscopy patients in Thailand.

Authors:  Keerati Charoencholvanich; Boonchana Pongcharoen
Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai       Date:  2005-09

6.  Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery.

Authors:  David J Beard; Kristina Harris; Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; David W Murray; Andrew J Carr; Andrew J Price
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Is single-stage revision according to a strict protocol effective in treatment of chronic knee arthroplasty infections?

Authors:  Fares Sami Haddad; Mohamed Sukeik; Sulaiman Alazzawi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection.

Authors:  Corentin Pangaud; Matthieu Ollivier; Jean-Noël Argenson
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2019-08-02

Review 9.  The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential.

Authors:  Morten Schmidt; Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt; Jakob Lynge Sandegaard; Vera Ehrenstein; Lars Pedersen; Henrik Toft Sørensen
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection--the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Simon Strange; Michael R Whitehouse; Andrew D Beswick; Tim Board; Amanda Burston; Ben Burston; Fran E Carroll; Paul Dieppe; Kirsty Garfield; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Stephen Jones; Setor Kunutsor; Athene Lane; Erik Lenguerrand; Alasdair MacGowan; Andrew Moore; Sian Noble; Joanne Simon; Ian Stockley; Adrian H Taylor; Andrew Toms; Jason Webb; John-Paul Whittaker; Matthew Wilson; Vikki Wylde; Ashley W Blom
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Strategic approach in periprosthetic joint infections].

Authors:  Peter Savov; Max Ettinger; Henning Windhagen; Mohamed Omar; Lars-Rene Tuecking
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

Authors:  Mustafa Akkaya; Georges Vles; Iman Godarzi Bakhtiari; Amir Sandiford; Jochen Salber; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Survival, functional outcome and satisfaction of first revision total knee arthroplasty at a mean eleven-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andreas Hecker; Hans-Jürg A Pütz; Sebastian Wangler; Frank M Klenke
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-01-18

4.  Sonication of revised hip and knee prostheses detects occult infections, improves clinical outcomes and prevents re - revisions. A case series study.

Authors:  Argyris C Hadjimichael; Athanasios F Foukas; Angelos Kaspiris; Dimitris Vasileiou; Spyros Kamariotis; Antonios Stylianakis; Elias S Vasiliadis; Olga D Savvidou; Athanasios Antonopoulos
Journal:  Infect Prev Pract       Date:  2022-07-12

5.  Failure Analysis in Multiple TKA Revisions-Periprosthetic Infections Remain Surgeons' Nemesis.

Authors:  Stephanie Kirschbaum; Sarah Erhart; Carsten Perka; Robert Hube; Kathi Thiele
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.241

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.