低剂量替柯planin与高剂量万古霉素-庆大霉素间隔剂治疗假体周围膝关节感染的比较

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Osman Çimen, A. Oner, Alper Koksal, Ferdi Dırvar, M. Mert, Mümine Nursu Şahin, D. Kargın
{"title":"低剂量替柯planin与高剂量万古霉素-庆大霉素间隔剂治疗假体周围膝关节感染的比较","authors":"Osman Çimen, A. Oner, Alper Koksal, Ferdi Dırvar, M. Mert, Mümine Nursu Şahin, D. Kargın","doi":"10.1177/22104917221082312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/purpose In the current study, our aim was to compare the efficacy and biocompatibility of teicoplanin-loaded and vancomycin-and-gentamicin-loaded articulating spacers used in two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradication of periprosthetic knee joint infection. Methods In the current retrospective cohort study, there were 24 patients who were given 2 g or less antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the low-dose teicoplanin group, and 20 patients who were given a total of 3.6 g or more antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the high-dose vancomycin and gentamicin group. Two groups were compared statistically. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the treatment failure between the two groups (p = 0.488). No statistically significant differences were found in spacer fracture rates between the two groups (p = 0.802). Conclusion The current study has demonstrated that low-dose teicoplanin protocol is as effective and safe as high-dose vancomycin and gentamycin protocol.","PeriodicalId":42408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of low-dose teicoplanin-loaded spacer application vs. high-dose vancomycin-and-gentamicin-loaded spacer application in the treatment of periprosthetic knee infection\",\"authors\":\"Osman Çimen, A. Oner, Alper Koksal, Ferdi Dırvar, M. Mert, Mümine Nursu Şahin, D. Kargın\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22104917221082312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background/purpose In the current study, our aim was to compare the efficacy and biocompatibility of teicoplanin-loaded and vancomycin-and-gentamicin-loaded articulating spacers used in two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradication of periprosthetic knee joint infection. Methods In the current retrospective cohort study, there were 24 patients who were given 2 g or less antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the low-dose teicoplanin group, and 20 patients who were given a total of 3.6 g or more antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the high-dose vancomycin and gentamicin group. Two groups were compared statistically. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the treatment failure between the two groups (p = 0.488). No statistically significant differences were found in spacer fracture rates between the two groups (p = 0.802). Conclusion The current study has demonstrated that low-dose teicoplanin protocol is as effective and safe as high-dose vancomycin and gentamycin protocol.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917221082312\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917221082312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的在本研究中,我们的目的是比较负载替柯planin和负载万古霉素-庆大霉素的关节间隔器用于两期翻修关节置换术根除假体周围膝关节感染的疗效和生物相容性。方法本回顾性队列研究中,低剂量替柯planin组有24例患者每40 g水泥中抗生素用量在2g及以下,高剂量万古霉素和庆大霉素组有20例患者每40 g水泥中抗生素用量在3.6 g及以上。两组比较有统计学意义。结果两组治疗失败率比较,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.488)。两组间间隔器骨折发生率无统计学差异(p = 0.802)。结论低剂量替柯planin方案与大剂量万古霉素和庆大霉素方案同样安全有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of low-dose teicoplanin-loaded spacer application vs. high-dose vancomycin-and-gentamicin-loaded spacer application in the treatment of periprosthetic knee infection
Background/purpose In the current study, our aim was to compare the efficacy and biocompatibility of teicoplanin-loaded and vancomycin-and-gentamicin-loaded articulating spacers used in two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradication of periprosthetic knee joint infection. Methods In the current retrospective cohort study, there were 24 patients who were given 2 g or less antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the low-dose teicoplanin group, and 20 patients who were given a total of 3.6 g or more antibiotics per 40 g of cement in the high-dose vancomycin and gentamicin group. Two groups were compared statistically. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the treatment failure between the two groups (p = 0.488). No statistically significant differences were found in spacer fracture rates between the two groups (p = 0.802). Conclusion The current study has demonstrated that low-dose teicoplanin protocol is as effective and safe as high-dose vancomycin and gentamycin protocol.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
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