Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Unexpected positive cultures after revision shoulder arthroplasty: does it affect outcome?
Falstie-Jensen, Thomas; Lange, Jeppe; Daugaard, Henrik; Sørensen, Anne Katrine Belling; Ovesen, Janne; Søballe, Kjeld.
Afiliação
  • Falstie-Jensen T; Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: thomfals@rm.dk.
  • Lange J; Orthopedic Department, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Daugaard H; Orthopedic Department, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
  • Sørensen AKB; Orthopedic Department, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
  • Ovesen J; Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Søballe K; Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg ; 30(6): 1299-1308, 2021 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33548396
BACKGROUND: Several studies have confirmed a high rate of unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) after presumably aseptic revisions of shoulder arthroplasties; however, the impact on the outcome is still unclear. The purpose of this prospective study is to compare the patient-reported outcomes of standard revisions with and without the emergence of UPCs. METHODS: During a 3-year period, we included all patients who were revised for reasons other than suspicion of infection from 2 orthopedic centers. Five biopsies were obtained from every revision, and only cultures with the same bacteria in at least 3 biopsy specimens were classified as UPCs. All patients were assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and range of motion preoperatively and after at least a 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, 124 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 29 months (range 29-32), and UPCs emerged after 27 revisions (22%), with Cutibacterium acnes accounting for 67% (18/27). At baseline, the OSS was 22 in both the culture-negative and UPC groups (P = .46). Then, at follow-up, the OSS was 37 in the culture-negative group and 35 in the UPC group (P = .91). The forward elevation increased significantly by 44° and 41°, respectively, in the 2 groups, but no statistically significant difference between the culture-negative group and the UPC group was found (P = .66). In contrast, the external rotation was unchanged after the revision, and again, no difference in the change between the culture-negative and UPC groups (P = .54) was observed. Subgroup analyses stratified by different implant designs revealed equal patterns with no statistical differences in outcome. CONCLUSION: We did not find a difference in outcome after a presumed aseptic revision regardless of the emergence of UPCs. Similarly, we could not demonstrate that patients with UPCs presented with poorer function at baseline compared with culture-negative patients. The clinical relevance of UPCs thus requires further evaluation, especially in the case of C acnes as a potential pathogenic versus a merely colonizing microbe.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Articulação do Ombro / Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese / Artroplastia do Ombro Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Articulação do Ombro / Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese / Artroplastia do Ombro Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article