Antonio Russo1,2, Luca Cavagnaro3, Francesco Chiarlone3, Mattia Alessio-Mazzola1,2, Lamberto Felli1,2, Giorgio Burastero4. 1. Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV 6, 16132, Genoa, Italy. 3. Joint Arthroplasty Unit, Orthopaedic and Traumatology 2, Santa Corona Hospital, Viale 25 Aprile 38, 17027, Pietra Ligure, Italy. 4. Prosthetic Surgery Centre, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. giorgio.burastero64@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the standardization of two-stage knee revision protocols, a high percentage of failures still occurs. Identifying the predictors of failure is necessary to determine appropriate management and counsel for patients with a periprosthetic knee infection. This study aimed to identify risk factors predicting the failure, to describe implant survival, and to report the mid-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent two-stage knee revision from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed, and 108 patients were included. The mean age was 66.6 ± 9.2 years. The mean follow-up was 52.9 ± 15.6 months. Logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of treatment failure. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess implant survival. Preoperative functional outcomes were compared to those registered at the final follow-up. RESULTS: Difficult-to-treat infections (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.2-14.5, p = 0.025), the number of previous surgeries (OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.005), and the level of tibial bone defect (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p = 0.027) significantly predicted the failure of two-stage knee revision. Survivorship of implants was significantly lower for patients presenting these risk factors (p < 0.05). Mean Knee Society Score improved from 49.0 ± 12.0 to 80.2 ± 13.6 (p < 0.001). Mean Oxford Knee Score improved from 22.2 ± 4.9 to 36.1 ± 6.0 points (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Difficult-to-treat pathogens, the number of previous surgeries, and the level of tibial bone defect were independent risk factors of two-stage knee revision failure. Overall, the two-stage protocol provided a good survival rate and functional outcome.
PURPOSE: Despite the standardization of two-stage knee revision protocols, a high percentage of failures still occurs. Identifying the predictors of failure is necessary to determine appropriate management and counsel for patients with a periprosthetic knee infection. This study aimed to identify risk factors predicting the failure, to describe implant survival, and to report the mid-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent two-stage knee revision from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed, and 108 patients were included. The mean age was 66.6 ± 9.2 years. The mean follow-up was 52.9 ± 15.6 months. Logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of treatment failure. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess implant survival. Preoperative functional outcomes were compared to those registered at the final follow-up. RESULTS: Difficult-to-treat infections (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.2-14.5, p = 0.025), the number of previous surgeries (OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.005), and the level of tibial bone defect (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p = 0.027) significantly predicted the failure of two-stage knee revision. Survivorship of implants was significantly lower for patients presenting these risk factors (p < 0.05). Mean Knee Society Score improved from 49.0 ± 12.0 to 80.2 ± 13.6 (p < 0.001). Mean Oxford Knee Score improved from 22.2 ± 4.9 to 36.1 ± 6.0 points (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Difficult-to-treat pathogens, the number of previous surgeries, and the level of tibial bone defect were independent risk factors of two-stage knee revision failure. Overall, the two-stage protocol provided a good survival rate and functional outcome.
Authors: Richard Iorio; William J Robb; William L Healy; Daniel J Berry; William J Hozack; Richard F Kyle; David G Lewallen; Robert T Trousdale; William A Jiranek; Van P Stamos; Brian S Parsley Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Keith A Fehring; Matthew P Abdel; Matthieu Ollivier; Tad M Mabry; Arlen D Hanssen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Stephen M Petis; Kevin I Perry; Tad M Mabry; Arlen D Hanssen; Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: S M Javad Mortazavi; David Vegari; Anthony Ho; Benjamin Zmistowski; Javad Parvizi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Chad D Watts; Eric R Wagner; Matthew T Houdek; Douglas R Osmon; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen; Tad M Mabry Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Bernd Kubista; Robert U Hartzler; Christina M Wood; Douglas R Osmon; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ulrike Wittig; Maximilian Moshammer; Ines Vielgut; Georg Hauer; Patrick Reinbacher; Andreas Leithner; Patrick Sadoghi Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 3.067