Outcomes of Regional Block in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Ashley Treanor, Michelle Shimizu, Athena Barrett, Scott Byram, Daniel Schmitt, Nicholas Brown
{"title":"Outcomes of Regional Block in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection.","authors":"Ashley Treanor, Michelle Shimizu, Athena Barrett, Scott Byram, Daniel Schmitt, Nicholas Brown","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Infection is among the most common reasons for revision after a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is associated with notable morbidity and mortality rates. As the demand for TJA increases, a concurrent increase in the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is also expected to rise. While previous studies have explored differences in postoperative outcomes between general and spinal anesthesia, there is limited data on the use of regional blocks in patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty for PJI. This study evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revision TJA for PJI using regional blocks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 518 patients were retrospectively collected. Patients included in the study had undergone revision TJA for PJI from January 2004 to January 2023 at a single institution. Patients undergoing same-day bilateral revisions, above-knee amputations, and aseptic revisions were excluded. Postoperative complications investigated included local complications, postoperative transfusion, wound complication, readmission, sepsis, systemic infection, spinal infection, death, persistent PJI, periprosthetic fracture, and unplanned revision surgery. Chi-square analysis was used to compare postoperative complications between procedures that used spinal or general anesthesia with regional blocks and those with spinal or general anesthesia without regional blocks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 518 patients who underwent revision TJA, 63 (12.2%) used a regional block. After surgery, 12.7% (n = 8) of patients with regional block and 23.5% (n = 107) of patients without regional block experienced persistent PJI (P = 0.076). No significant differences in wound complication (P = 0.333), readmission (P = 0.998), revision surgery (P = 0.783), and death (P = 0.588) were found between those with and without regional block use. Sepsis (P = 0.224), systemic infection (P = 0.220), and spinal infection (P = 0.998) rates within 1 year after revision TJA for PJI surgery were comparable between the two groups. No local infections were observed at the block site. A subanalysis comparing spinal and general anesthesia demonstrated comparable persistent PJI postoperatively and complication rates; however, spinal anesthesia use was associated with shorter length of stay (P = 0.003) and lower transfusion rates (P = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study suggest that the use of regional block is not associated with an increased probability of postoperative persistent PJI, local wound complication, readmission, spinal/systemic/other infections, death, or revision surgery. Surgeons can comfortably choose regional block as a safe option for revision surgery for PJI. Consistent with previous research, patients who received spinal anesthesia had shorter hospital stays and lower transfusion rates when compared with those who received general anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":"8 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11410322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Infection is among the most common reasons for revision after a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is associated with notable morbidity and mortality rates. As the demand for TJA increases, a concurrent increase in the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is also expected to rise. While previous studies have explored differences in postoperative outcomes between general and spinal anesthesia, there is limited data on the use of regional blocks in patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty for PJI. This study evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revision TJA for PJI using regional blocks.

Methods: Data from 518 patients were retrospectively collected. Patients included in the study had undergone revision TJA for PJI from January 2004 to January 2023 at a single institution. Patients undergoing same-day bilateral revisions, above-knee amputations, and aseptic revisions were excluded. Postoperative complications investigated included local complications, postoperative transfusion, wound complication, readmission, sepsis, systemic infection, spinal infection, death, persistent PJI, periprosthetic fracture, and unplanned revision surgery. Chi-square analysis was used to compare postoperative complications between procedures that used spinal or general anesthesia with regional blocks and those with spinal or general anesthesia without regional blocks.

Results: Of the 518 patients who underwent revision TJA, 63 (12.2%) used a regional block. After surgery, 12.7% (n = 8) of patients with regional block and 23.5% (n = 107) of patients without regional block experienced persistent PJI (P = 0.076). No significant differences in wound complication (P = 0.333), readmission (P = 0.998), revision surgery (P = 0.783), and death (P = 0.588) were found between those with and without regional block use. Sepsis (P = 0.224), systemic infection (P = 0.220), and spinal infection (P = 0.998) rates within 1 year after revision TJA for PJI surgery were comparable between the two groups. No local infections were observed at the block site. A subanalysis comparing spinal and general anesthesia demonstrated comparable persistent PJI postoperatively and complication rates; however, spinal anesthesia use was associated with shorter length of stay (P = 0.003) and lower transfusion rates (P = 0.002).

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the use of regional block is not associated with an increased probability of postoperative persistent PJI, local wound complication, readmission, spinal/systemic/other infections, death, or revision surgery. Surgeons can comfortably choose regional block as a safe option for revision surgery for PJI. Consistent with previous research, patients who received spinal anesthesia had shorter hospital stays and lower transfusion rates when compared with those who received general anesthesia.

区域阻滞在修复性关节感染的翻修全关节成形术中的效果。
导言:感染是全关节成形术(TJA)后最常见的翻修原因之一,并与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。随着对 TJA 需求的增加,假体周围关节感染 (PJI) 的发病率预计也会随之增加。虽然之前的研究已经探讨了全身麻醉和脊髓麻醉在术后效果上的差异,但在因 PJI 而接受翻修关节置换术的患者中使用区域阻滞的数据却很有限。本研究评估了使用区域阻滞对因 PJI 接受翻修性 TJA 手术的患者的术后效果:回顾性收集了 518 名患者的数据。纳入研究的患者均于 2004 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月期间在一家医疗机构接受过 PJI 翻修 TJA 手术。排除了当天进行双侧翻修、膝上截肢和无菌翻修的患者。调查的术后并发症包括局部并发症、术后输血、伤口并发症、再入院、败血症、全身感染、脊柱感染、死亡、持续性 PJI、假体周围骨折和计划外翻修手术。利用卡方分析比较了使用脊髓或全身麻醉并进行区域阻滞的手术与使用脊髓或全身麻醉但不进行区域阻滞的手术之间的术后并发症:在 518 名接受翻修 TJA 的患者中,63 人(12.2%)使用了区域阻滞。术后,12.7%(n = 8)接受区域阻滞的患者和 23.5%(n = 107)未接受区域阻滞的患者出现持续性 PJI(P = 0.076)。使用和未使用区域阻滞的患者在伤口并发症(P = 0.333)、再入院(P = 0.998)、翻修手术(P = 0.783)和死亡(P = 0.588)方面无明显差异。两组患者在PJI翻修TJA手术后1年内的脓毒症(P = 0.224)、全身感染(P = 0.220)和脊柱感染(P = 0.998)发生率相当。阻滞部位未观察到局部感染。一项比较脊髓麻醉和全身麻醉的子分析表明,两组术后PJI持续率和并发症发生率相当;然而,使用脊髓麻醉与住院时间缩短(P = 0.003)和输血率降低(P = 0.002)有关:本研究结果表明,使用区域阻滞与术后持续性 PJI、局部伤口并发症、再入院、脊柱/系统/其他感染、死亡或翻修手术的概率增加无关。外科医生可以放心地选择区域阻滞作为 PJI 翻修手术的安全选项。与之前的研究一致,与接受全身麻醉的患者相比,接受脊髓麻醉的患者住院时间更短,输血率更低。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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