Detailed Revision Risk Analysis after Single- vs. Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Retrospective Tertiary Center Analysis

被引:16
|
作者
Tuecking, Lars-Rene [1 ]
Silligmann, Julia [1 ]
Savov, Peter [1 ]
Omar, Mohamed [2 ]
Windhagen, Henning [1 ]
Ettinger, Max [1 ]
机构
[1] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Anna Von Borries Str I-7, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
[2] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Trauma Surg, Carl Neuberg Str 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
来源
ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL | 2021年 / 10卷 / 10期
关键词
periprosthetic joint infection; PJI; single-stage revision TKA; two-stage revision TKA; revision risk; rTKA; STAGE EXCHANGE;
D O I
10.3390/antibiotics10101177
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains one of the most common causes of revision knee arthroplasty. Controversy continues to surround the proper operative technique of PJI in knee arthroplasty with single- or two-stage replacement. Significant variations are seen in the eradication rates of PJI and in implant survival rates. This detailed retrospective analysis of a single tertiary center is intended to provide further data and insight comparing single- and two-stage revision surgery. A retrospective analysis of all revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries from 2013 to 2019 was performed and screened with respect to single- or two-stage TKA revisions. Single- and two-stage revisions were analyzed with regard to implant survival, revision rate, microbiological spectrum, and other typical demographic characteristics. A total of 63 patients were included, with 15 patients undergoing single-stage revision and 48 patients undergoing two-stage revision. The mean follow-up time was 40.7 to 43.7 months. Statistically, no difference was found between both groups in overall survival (54.4% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.68) and implant survival with respect to reinfection (71.4% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.48). Further, high reinfection rates were found for patients with difficult-to-treat organisms and low- to semi-constrained implant types, in comparison to constrained implant types. A statistically comparable revision rate for recurrence of infection could be shown for both groups, although a tendency to higher reinfection rate for single-stage change was evident. The revision rate in this single-center study was comparably high, which could be caused by the high comorbidity and high proportion of difficult-to-treat bacteria in patients at a tertiary center. In this patient population, the expectation of implant survival should be critically discussed with patients.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Effectiveness of Repeat Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection
    Vadiee, Iman
    Backstein, David J.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (02): : 369 - 374
  • [42] Successful Two-Stage Revision of Lactobacillus Infection of a Total Knee Arthroplasty and Literature Review
    Jacobson, Nathan
    Milshteyn, Michael
    Teitge, Robert
    SURGICAL INFECTIONS, 2014, 15 (05) : 635 - 639
  • [43] Single- or Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature
    Leonard, Hugh A. C.
    Liddle, Alexander D.
    Burke, Orlaith
    Murray, David W.
    Pandit, Hemant
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2014, 472 (03) : 1036 - 1042
  • [44] Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial
    Yong Zhao
    Shaohua Fan
    Zhangfu Wang
    Xueli Yan
    Hua Luo
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 25
  • [45] Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial
    Zhao, Yong
    Fan, Shaohua
    Wang, Zhangfu
    Yan, Xueli
    Luo, Hua
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [46] High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one- stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty
    Neufeld, M. E.
    Liechti, E. F.
    Soto, F.
    Linke, P.
    Busch, S. -M
    Gehrke, T.
    Citak, M.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2022, 104B (03): : 386 - 393
  • [47] Periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a bibliometrics analysis
    Shen, Songpo
    Zhang, Yichao
    Zhang, Qiang
    Xiao, Kai
    Tang, Jiaguang
    ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (09) : 9927 - 9939
  • [48] Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Belay, Elshaday S.
    Danilkowicz, Richard
    Bullock, Garrett
    Wall, Kevin
    Garrigues, Grant E.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2020, 29 (12) : 2476 - 2486
  • [49] Smoking is not closely related to revision for periprosthetic joint infection after primary total knee and hip arthroplasty
    Gonzalez-Parreno, Santiago
    Miralles-Munoz, Francisco Antonio
    Martinez-Mendez, Daniel
    Perez-Aznar, Adolfo
    Gonzalez-Navarro, Blanca
    Lizaur-Utrilla, Alejandro
    Vizcaya-Moreno, Maria Flores
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2024, 110 (05)
  • [50] Two-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Management of Chronic Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: Techniques, Controversies, and Outcomes
    Kuzyk, Paul R. T.
    Dhotar, Herman S.
    Sternheim, Amir
    Gross, Allan E.
    Safir, Oleg
    Backstein, David
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2014, 22 (03) : 153 - 164