Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection

被引:119
作者
Pangaud, Corentin [1 ]
Ollivier, Matthieu [1 ]
Argenson, Jean-Noel [1 ]
机构
[1] Aix Marseille Univ, Hop St Marguerite, 270 Bd St Marguerite, F-13009 Marseille, France
关键词
eradication rate; functional outcome; periprosthetic joint infection; single-stage exchange; total knee replacement; two-stage exchange; JOINT INFECTION; ARTICULATING SPACER; REIMPLANTATION; PROSTHESIS; MULTICENTER; MANAGEMENT; CONVERSION; TKA;
D O I
10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003
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
The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single-and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee. We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static. In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4 degrees in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8 degrees in the double-stage exchange group. Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two-stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs.
引用
收藏
页码:495 / 502
页数:8
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
Antony Suresh J, 2015, Infect Dis (Auckl), V8, P17, DOI 10.4137/IDRT.S26824
[2]   Patient reported outcome measures after revision of the infected TKR: comparison of single versus two-stage revision [J].
Baker, Paul ;
Petheram, Timothy G. ;
Kurtz, Steven ;
Konttinen, Yrjo T. ;
Gregg, Paul ;
Deehan, David .
KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2013, 21 (12) :2713-2720
[3]  
Bauer T, 2006, REV CHIR ORTHOP, V92, P692
[4]   Infection after total knee arthroplasty [J].
Blom, AW ;
Brown, J ;
Taylor, AH ;
Pattison, G ;
Whitehouse, S ;
Bannister, GC .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2004, 86B (05) :688-691
[5]   Incidence, Risk Factors, and Sources of Sepsis Following Total Joint Arthroplasty [J].
Bohl, Daniel D. ;
Sershon, Robert A. ;
Fillingham, Yale A. ;
Della Valle, Craig J. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2016, 31 (12) :2875-+
[6]  
Borden L S, 1987, J Arthroplasty, V2, P27, DOI 10.1016/S0883-5403(87)80028-1
[7]   The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States [J].
Bozic, Kevin J. ;
Kurtz, Steven M. ;
Lau, Edmund ;
Ong, Kevin ;
Chiu, Vanessa ;
Vail, Thomas P. ;
Rubash, Harry E. ;
Berry, Daniel J. .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2010, 468 (01) :45-51
[8]  
Buechel Frederick F, 2004, Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), V33, P190
[9]  
Calton TF, 1997, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P148
[10]  
Castellani Lucas, 2017, HSS J, V13, P224, DOI 10.1007/s11420-017-9550-z