无菌失败后翻修全膝关节置换术时间对预后的影响。

IF 4.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Mackenzie A Roof, Shankar Narayanan, Nathan Lorentz, Vinay K Aggarwal, Morteza Meftah, Ran Schwarzkopf
{"title":"无菌失败后翻修全膝关节置换术时间对预后的影响。","authors":"Mackenzie A Roof,&nbsp;Shankar Narayanan,&nbsp;Nathan Lorentz,&nbsp;Vinay K Aggarwal,&nbsp;Morteza Meftah,&nbsp;Ran Schwarzkopf","doi":"10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, retrospective observational analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17886,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.\",\"authors\":\"Mackenzie A Roof,&nbsp;Shankar Narayanan,&nbsp;Nathan Lorentz,&nbsp;Vinay K Aggarwal,&nbsp;Morteza Meftah,&nbsp;Ran Schwarzkopf\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, retrospective observational analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery & Related Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230807/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery & Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究已经证明翻修全膝关节置换术(rTKA)的时间与适应症之间存在关联;然而,早期和晚期翻修对术后结果的影响尚未见报道。材料和方法:一项回顾性观察性研究调查了2011年6月至2020年4月在一家学术骨科医院接受单侧无菌rTKA手术的患者,随访时间超过1年。如果患者在2年内进行原发性TKA (pTKA)翻修,则进行早期翻修;如果患者在2年后进行翻修,则进行晚期翻修。比较患者人口统计学、手术因素和术后结果。结果:共纳入rTKA 470例(早期199例,晚期271例)。早期rTKA患者年轻2.5岁(p = 0.002)。早期rTKA的主要适应症是不稳定(28.6%)和关节纤维化/僵硬(26.6%),晚期rTKA的主要适应症是无菌性松动(45.8%)和不稳定(26.2%);结论:2岁前进行的无菌rTKA有不同的适应症,但结果与之后进行的相似。早期改型手术时间较短,这可能归因于rTKA适应症的差异。证据水平:III级,回顾性观察性分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.

Introduction: Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported.

Materials and methods: A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.

Results: 470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.

Conclusions: Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication.

Level of evidence: III, retrospective observational analysis.

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
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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