Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection.

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Martin Resl, Luis Becker, Arnd Steinbrück, Yinan Wu, Carsten Perka
{"title":"Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection.","authors":"Martin Resl, Luis Becker, Arnd Steinbrück, Yinan Wu, Carsten Perka","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.106B6.BJJ-2023-1181.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the 'real world'. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B6.BJJ-2023-1181.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Methods: This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.

Results: The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA.

Conclusion: The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the 'real world'. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection.

因感染进行翻修全髋关节置换术后的再次手术和死亡率。
目的:本研究比较了登记数据中化脓性和无菌翻修髋关节置换术(rTHA)后的再次手术率和死亡率,并将结果与之前报告的数据进行了比较:这是一项观察性队列研究,使用的数据来自德国关节成形术登记处(EPRD)。该研究共纳入了17842例rTHA,分析了化脓性和无菌性rTHA术后髋关节再植率和死亡率以及累计发生率,并进行了为期7年的随访。采用 Kaplan-Meier 估计法测定 rTHA 后的再切除率和累积死亡率:结果:化脓性 rTHA 术后一年内的再发率为 30%,七年后为 34%。化脓性 rTHA 术后一年内的累积死亡率为 14%,七年内的累积死亡率为 40%。经过多次髋关节翻修后,化脓性 rTHA 的再次翻修率上升到 40% 以上。头六个月被认为是化脓性 rTHA 再次翻修的最关键时期:结论:与之前的荟萃分析相比,ERPD 中记录的脓毒性 rTHA 后再次手术和再次感染的风险几乎高出四倍。我们的结论是,目前还不能假设单项研究和荟萃分析的数据反映了 "真实世界 "的结果。荟萃分析和专业单中心研究中的数据并不能反映 ERPD 中记录的结果的普遍性。术后头六个月的再次手术率和死亡率最高。通过发展高流量专科医院网络来优化围手术期护理,很可能会改善接受 rTHA 的患者的预后,尤其是在伴有感染的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信