RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Two-stage revision is the gold standard for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The removal of well-fixed implants, especially the femoral component, can be extremely difficult and additional osteotomies may be needed, which is time-consuming and results in bone stock loss. When the femoral stem is osseointegrated, there is no clear indication for the use of partial two-stage revision. The primary objective was to assess infection eradication after surgery. METHODS: Retrospective study of specific case series. A total of eight patients with a chronic uncemented PJI, in the setting of complex revision surgeries, were treated with partial two-stage revision, which included selective retention of the well-fixed femoral component and complete acetabular removal. Stem retention was carried out regardless of the bacteria or associated comorbidities. RESULTS: All patients were re-revision cases with at least two previous surgeries (range, 2-4). Complex revisions were performed in five cases (non-articulated spacer) and simple revisions in three cases (articulated spacer). The minimum follow-up time was 24 months (range, 24-132 months). The infection eradication rate at final follow-up was 100%. CONCLUSION: Partial two-stage reconstruction is a promising technique for the treatment of chronic PJI in patients with a well-fixed stem and complex re-revision acetabular procedures. Further prospective studies and prolonged follow-ups are required to confirm our results.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Preoperative psychologic distress is considered to be a risk factor for clinical dissatisfaction stemming from persistent pain and physical limitations after elective orthopaedic procedures such as lower-extremity arthroplasty. However, the degree to which psychologic distress, specifically in the form of anxiety and depression, influences surgical results has been poorly characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We analyzed the effect of preoperative psychologic distress on changes in pain, function, and quality of life 1 year after elective TKA. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we assessed patients who underwent TKAs in 2009 and 2010. Before surgery, patients completed the Folstein Mini Mental Test, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD), The Knee Society Score(©), the WOMAC quality-of-life questionnaire, and the VAS for pain. The patients were divided into two groups based on the degree of psychologic distress on the HAD Scale, and the groups were compared in terms of the above-listed clinical outcomes tools 1 year after surgery using multivariate linear models. Two hundred sixty-three patients met the inclusion criteria, and 202 (77%) completed the study protocol. RESULTS: The presence of preoperative psychologic distress did not influence 1-year postoperative pain assessment (average reduction in pain, 40.33; 95% CI, 36.9-43.8; p = 0.18). The only factor influencing change in pain experienced by patients was the preoperative pain recorded (R(2) = 0.31; ß = -0.82; p < 0.001). The patients experiencing preoperative psychologic distress obtained poorer outcomes in function (R(2) = 0.16; ß = -5.62; p = 0.001) and quality of life (R(2) = 0.09; ß = -0.46; p < 0.001) 1 year after receiving TKA. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of preoperative psychologic distress is associated with worse 1-year outcomes for function and quality of life in patients undergoing TKA. Interventions designed to reduce psychologic distress may be indicated for patients to undergo this type of surgery, and incorporation of these data into discussions with patients may facilitate informed and shared decision making regarding the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
