全膝关节置换术后骨水泥垫片治疗的疗效。

IF 1 Q3 SURGERY
Mohamed Ghanem, Dirk Zajonz, Juliane Bollmann, Vanessa Geissler, Torsten Prietzel, Michael Moche, Andreas Roth, Christoph-E Heyde, Christoph Josten
{"title":"全膝关节置换术后骨水泥垫片治疗的疗效。","authors":"Mohamed Ghanem,&nbsp;Dirk Zajonz,&nbsp;Juliane Bollmann,&nbsp;Vanessa Geissler,&nbsp;Torsten Prietzel,&nbsp;Michael Moche,&nbsp;Andreas Roth,&nbsp;Christoph-E Heyde,&nbsp;Christoph Josten","doi":"10.3205/iprs000091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infection after total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the serious complications which must be pursued with a very effective therapeutic concept. In most cases this means revision arthroplasty, in which one-setting and two-setting procedures are distinguished. Healing of infection is the conditio sine qua non for re-implantation. This retrospective work presents an assessment of the success rate after a two-setting revision arthroplasty of the knee following periprosthetic infection. It further considers drawing conclusions concerning the optimal timing of re-implantation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 34 patients have been enclosed in this study from September 2005 to December 2013. 35 re-implantations were carried out following explantation of total knee and implantation of cemented spacer. The patient's group comprised of 53% (18) males and 47% (16) females. The average age at re-implantation time was 72.2 years (ranging from 54 to 85 years). We particularly evaluated the microbial spectrum, the interval between explantation and re-implantation, the number of surgeries that were necessary prior to re-implantation as well as the postoperative course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reported 31.4% (11) reinfections following re-implantation surgeries. The number of the reinfections declined with increasing time interval between explantation and re-implantation. Patients who developed reinfections were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 4.47 months. Those patients with uncomplicated course were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 6.79 months. Nevertheless, we noticed no essential differences in outcome with regard to the number of surgeries carried out prior to re-implantation. Mobile spacers proved better outcome than temporary arthrodesis with intramedullary fixation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No uniform strategy of treatment exists after peri-prosthetic infections. In particular, no optimal timing can be stated concerning re-implantation. Our data point out to the fact that a longer time interval between explantation and re-implantation reduces the rate of reinfection. From our point of view, the optimal timing for re-implantation depends on various specific factors and therefore it should be defined individually.</p>","PeriodicalId":43347,"journal":{"name":"GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4811200/pdf/","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Ghanem,&nbsp;Dirk Zajonz,&nbsp;Juliane Bollmann,&nbsp;Vanessa Geissler,&nbsp;Torsten Prietzel,&nbsp;Michael Moche,&nbsp;Andreas Roth,&nbsp;Christoph-E Heyde,&nbsp;Christoph Josten\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/iprs000091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infection after total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the serious complications which must be pursued with a very effective therapeutic concept. In most cases this means revision arthroplasty, in which one-setting and two-setting procedures are distinguished. Healing of infection is the conditio sine qua non for re-implantation. This retrospective work presents an assessment of the success rate after a two-setting revision arthroplasty of the knee following periprosthetic infection. It further considers drawing conclusions concerning the optimal timing of re-implantation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 34 patients have been enclosed in this study from September 2005 to December 2013. 35 re-implantations were carried out following explantation of total knee and implantation of cemented spacer. The patient's group comprised of 53% (18) males and 47% (16) females. The average age at re-implantation time was 72.2 years (ranging from 54 to 85 years). We particularly evaluated the microbial spectrum, the interval between explantation and re-implantation, the number of surgeries that were necessary prior to re-implantation as well as the postoperative course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We reported 31.4% (11) reinfections following re-implantation surgeries. The number of the reinfections declined with increasing time interval between explantation and re-implantation. Patients who developed reinfections were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 4.47 months. Those patients with uncomplicated course were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 6.79 months. Nevertheless, we noticed no essential differences in outcome with regard to the number of surgeries carried out prior to re-implantation. Mobile spacers proved better outcome than temporary arthrodesis with intramedullary fixation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No uniform strategy of treatment exists after peri-prosthetic infections. In particular, no optimal timing can be stated concerning re-implantation. Our data point out to the fact that a longer time interval between explantation and re-implantation reduces the rate of reinfection. From our point of view, the optimal timing for re-implantation depends on various specific factors and therefore it should be defined individually.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4811200/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/iprs000091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/iprs000091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:全膝关节置换术后感染是严重的并发症之一,必须有一个非常有效的治疗理念。在大多数情况下,这意味着翻修关节成形术,其中一次复位和两次复位手术是区分的。感染的愈合是再次植入的必要条件。本回顾性研究评估了假体周围感染后膝关节二次复位翻修置换术的成功率。它进一步考虑得出关于再植入最佳时机的结论。患者和方法:本研究于2005年9月至2013年12月共纳入34例患者。在全膝关节取出并植入骨水泥垫片后进行了35例再植入术。患者组男性占53%(18例),女性占47%(16例)。再植入术的平均年龄为72.2岁(54 ~ 85岁)。我们特别评估了微生物谱,移植和再植入之间的间隔,再植入之前必要的手术次数以及术后过程。结果:再植入术后再感染31.4%(11例)。再感染的数量随着离体时间的增加而减少。再感染患者平均在4.47个月后进行再植入术。病程不复杂的患者平均在6.79个月后进行再植入术。然而,我们注意到在再植入之前进行的手术次数在结果上没有本质差异。移动垫片比临时关节融合术合并髓内固定效果更好。结论:假体周围感染后没有统一的治疗策略。特别是,关于再植入,没有最佳的时间可以说明。我们的数据指出,较长的移植和再植入之间的时间间隔降低了再感染率。从我们的观点来看,再植入术的最佳时机取决于各种具体因素,因此应该单独确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy.

Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy.

Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy.

Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy.

Background: Infection after total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the serious complications which must be pursued with a very effective therapeutic concept. In most cases this means revision arthroplasty, in which one-setting and two-setting procedures are distinguished. Healing of infection is the conditio sine qua non for re-implantation. This retrospective work presents an assessment of the success rate after a two-setting revision arthroplasty of the knee following periprosthetic infection. It further considers drawing conclusions concerning the optimal timing of re-implantation.

Patients and methods: A total of 34 patients have been enclosed in this study from September 2005 to December 2013. 35 re-implantations were carried out following explantation of total knee and implantation of cemented spacer. The patient's group comprised of 53% (18) males and 47% (16) females. The average age at re-implantation time was 72.2 years (ranging from 54 to 85 years). We particularly evaluated the microbial spectrum, the interval between explantation and re-implantation, the number of surgeries that were necessary prior to re-implantation as well as the postoperative course.

Results: We reported 31.4% (11) reinfections following re-implantation surgeries. The number of the reinfections declined with increasing time interval between explantation and re-implantation. Patients who developed reinfections were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 4.47 months. Those patients with uncomplicated course were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 6.79 months. Nevertheless, we noticed no essential differences in outcome with regard to the number of surgeries carried out prior to re-implantation. Mobile spacers proved better outcome than temporary arthrodesis with intramedullary fixation.

Conclusion: No uniform strategy of treatment exists after peri-prosthetic infections. In particular, no optimal timing can be stated concerning re-implantation. Our data point out to the fact that a longer time interval between explantation and re-implantation reduces the rate of reinfection. From our point of view, the optimal timing for re-implantation depends on various specific factors and therefore it should be defined individually.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
11 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