Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Acta Orthop ; 93: 652-657, 2022 07 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35848729

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate. RESULTS: 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure. INTERPRETATION: There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Prótesis de Cadera , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/efectos adversos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Prótesis de Cadera/efectos adversos , Humanos , Control de Infecciones , Falla de Prótesis , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/epidemiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/cirugía , Reoperación/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...