Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Arthroplasty ; 37(8S): S983-S988, 2022 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35143924

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Management of recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after attempted surgical eradication remains a challenge. Chronic antibiotic suppression (CAS) is regarded as a reasonable treatment option for select patients with persistent infection or multiple comorbidities. The study seeks to compare cohorts who succeed and fail with CAS. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assesses patients who were treated with CAS for a PJI. Patients were included if they had a culture-proven PJI and received chronic suppressive antibiotics. Failure of suppression was defined as reoperation after initiating CAS or death occurring as result of infection. A Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression model was used to estimate risk of reoperation as a function of risk factors related to patient comorbidities, surgical history, affected joint, and infecting organism. RESULTS: We identified 45 PJIs (31 knees, 14 hips) managed with CAS with a median follow-up of 50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.61-74.02) months. The overall success rate of managing PJI with CAS was 67% (30/45). Controlling for body mass index and Gram status of the organism, total hip arthroplasty patients were less likely than total knee arthroplasty patients to require reoperation (hazard ratio 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.96, P = .04). Patients with Gram-positive infections were less likely than those with a Gram-negative infections to require reoperation (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.88, P = .03). Severe antibiotic side effects were rare. Patients who experienced multiple changes to their antibiotic regimen were more likely to fail with CAS. CONCLUSION: CAS is a reasonable strategy in patients with PJI who lack or refuse further surgical treatment options. Most hips and Gram-positive infections treated with CAS successfully avoided reoperation in this cohort.


Assuntos
Artrite Infecciosa , Artroplastia de Quadril , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Infecciosa/etiologia , Artroplastia de Quadril/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/etiologia , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/cirurgia , Reoperação/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg ; 28(18): 764-771, 2020 Sep 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31764200

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: No previous data have demonstrated the effect of manual pressure during cement curing on interference-fit glenoid implant fixation in total shoulder arthroplasty. In this study, we examined cement mantle characteristics and implant seating using two different methods of securing an interference-fit glenoid implant with peripheral cemented pegs: a manual pressure technique versus a pressureless technique. METHODS: Sixteen cadaveric scapulae were harvested, and their glenoids were prepared for component insertion. Glenoids with an interference-fit central peg were cemented into the peripheral holes and fully seated. Two techniques were employed during cement curing: (1) a manual pressure technique (8 glenoids), which used a static 70 N load application to each implant for 10 minutes; and (2) a pressureless technique (8 glenoids), which used no pressure application, and the implant was left to set without intervention. Each glenoid was subsequently imaged using microcomputed tomography and analyzed for differences in cement mantle characteristics and implant seating. RESULTS: The mean area of cement penetration for the manual pressure technique was not statistically different from the pressureless group (P = .26, valid N = 288). The average implant incongruity after final seating in the manual pressure group was 0.63 mm, compared with 1.0 mm in the pressureless group. A linear mixed effects model with a Kenward-Roger correction was used to compare the two groups, and no significant difference was found (Mdiff = -0.386, 95% confidence interval: -0.978 to 0.206; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Manual pressure of the glenoid component during cement curing yielded no difference in the cement mantle area or final implant seating incongruity compared with a pressureless technique. This knowledge could potentially benefit both the surgeon and the patient by increasing the efficiency in total shoulder arthroplasty surgery.


Assuntos
Artroplastia do Ombro/métodos , Cimentos Ósseos , Cimentação/métodos , Cavidade Glenoide , Cuidados Intraoperatórios/métodos , Prótese Articular , Pressão , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...