Distal Femoral Replacement and Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Non-Oncological Reconstruction: A Retrospective Analysis

被引:13
作者
Sukhonthamarn, Kamolsak [1 ,2 ]
Strony, John T. [1 ]
Patel, Urvi J. [1 ]
Brown, Scot A. [1 ]
Nazarian, David G. [1 ]
Parvizi, Javad [1 ]
Klein, Gregg R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Rothman Orthopaed Inst, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Med, Dept Orthopaed, Khon Kaen, Thailand
关键词
distal femoral replacement; knee; aseptic failure; periprosthetic joint infection; outcome; FRACTURES; CLASSIFICATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2021.08.013
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is commonly used to manage massive bone loss around the knee arising from aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and distal femoral fractures. A number of studies report the outcome of DFR with considerable variation in long-term survivorship. This study investigated the outcome of DFR for patients with aseptic failures, fractures, and PJI. Methods: A retrospective review of 182 patients who underwent DFR for non-oncological indications between 2002 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included the following: indication, postoperative complications, reoperation, revision, and follow-up. Implant survivorship with Kaplan-Meier curves along with a log-rank test for different preoperative indications was performed. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the risk of revision. Results: The overall postoperative complication rate was very high at 36%. The most common complication was PJI (17%). The rate of reoperation for any cause was 29.7%, and the revision rate was 13.7%. The most common cause of re-revision was PJI (7.1%). Revision-free survivorship of the DFR implant was 91.6% at 1 year, 87.9% at 2 years, 82.5% at 5 years, and 73.4% at 10 years. Patients who had a prior-PJI had the lowest survivorship compared to patients undergoing DFR for management of periprosthetic fracture and mechanical loosening. Additionally, the prior-PJI group was at a fourfold increased risk of postoperative PJI compared to the aseptic group. Conclusion: DFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive bone loss around the knee. However, patients undergoing DFR are at high risk of complications, reoperations, and failure. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3959 / 3965
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] Clinical Outcome of Massive Endoprostheses Used for Managing Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee
    Alvand, Abtin
    Grammatopoulos, George
    de Vos, Floris
    Scarborough, Matthew
    Kendrick, Ben
    Price, Andrew
    Gundle, Roger
    Whitwell, Duncan
    Jackson, William
    Taylor, Adrian
    Gibbons, Christopher L. M. H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (03) : 829 - 834
  • [2] Distal Femoral Replacement in Nontumor Cases with Severe Bone Loss and Instability
    Berend, Keith R.
    Lombardi, Adolph V., Jr.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2009, 467 (02) : 485 - 492
  • [3] Use of modular megaprosthesis in managing chronic end-stage periprosthetic hip and knee infections: Is there an increase in relapse rate?
    Corona P.S.
    Vicente M.
    Lalanza M.
    Amat C.
    Carrera L.
    [J]. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2018, 28 (4) : 627 - 636
  • [4] Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?
    Darrith, Brian
    Bohl, Daniel D.
    Karadsheh, Mark S.
    Sporer, Scott M.
    Berger, Richard A.
    Levine, Brett R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2020, 35 (05) : 1402 - 1406
  • [5] Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival
    De Gori, Marco
    Scoccianti, Guido
    Frenos, Filippo
    Bettini, Leonardo
    Familiari, Filippo
    Gasparini, Giorgio
    Beltrami, Giovanni
    Cuomo, Pierluigi
    De Biase, Pietro
    Capanna, Rodolfo
    [J]. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 2016
  • [6] Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: Knee
    Engh, GA
    Ammeen, DJ
    [J]. ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 1998, 29 (02) : 205 - +
  • [7] Definition of Successful Infection Management and Guidelines for Reporting of Outcomes After Surgical Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection From the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS)
    Fillingham, Yale A.
    Della Valle, Craig J.
    Suleiman, Linda I.
    Springer, Bryan D.
    Gehrke, Thorsten
    Bini, Stefano A.
    Segreti, John
    Chen, Antonia F.
    Goswami, Karan
    Tan, Timothy L.
    Shohat, Noam
    Diaz-Ledezma, Claudio
    Schwartz, Adam J.
    Parvizi, Javad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2019, 101 (14)
  • [8] A systematic review of endoprosthetic replacement for non-tumour indications around the knee joint
    Korim, Muhammad T.
    Esler, Colin N. A.
    Reddy, Venuthurla R. M.
    Ashford, Robert U.
    [J]. KNEE, 2013, 20 (06) : 367 - 375
  • [9] The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review
    Meluzio, M. C.
    Oliva, M. S.
    Minutillo, F.
    Ziranu, A.
    Saccomanno, M. F.
    Maccauro, G.
    [J]. INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2020, 51 : S17 - S22
  • [10] Distal Femoral Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Mortazavi, S. M. Javad
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Bender, Benjamin
    Post, Zachary
    Parvizi, Javad
    Purtill, James J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2010, 25 (05) : 775 - 780