Cargando…

Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision (TSR) knee arthroplasty is an established treatment, but failure to control infection still occurs in 4–50 % of cases. The aim of this study was to assess the infection eradication rate, risk factors for failure, and the clinical outcome after two-stage revision knee a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hoell, Steffen, Sieweke, Anna, Gosheger, Georg, Hardes, Jendrik, Dieckmann, Ralf, Ahrens, Helmut, Streitbuerger, Arne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5000435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27562546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0428-4
_version_ 1782450283276664832
author Hoell, Steffen
Sieweke, Anna
Gosheger, Georg
Hardes, Jendrik
Dieckmann, Ralf
Ahrens, Helmut
Streitbuerger, Arne
author_facet Hoell, Steffen
Sieweke, Anna
Gosheger, Georg
Hardes, Jendrik
Dieckmann, Ralf
Ahrens, Helmut
Streitbuerger, Arne
author_sort Hoell, Steffen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision (TSR) knee arthroplasty is an established treatment, but failure to control infection still occurs in 4–50 % of cases. The aim of this study was to assess the infection eradication rate, risk factors for failure, and the clinical outcome after two-stage revision knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This retrospective study included 59 patients who had undergone at least one two-stage revision procedure due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Demographic data, comorbidities, types of implant, and complications were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify risk factors for failure. RESULTS: The infections were controlled in 55 patients (93.2 %). The follow-up period was 4.1 (±2.7) years. Infection control was achieved after the first TSR in 42 patients (71.2 %) and after the second TSR in 13 (76.5 %). The percentage of arthrodesis procedures in patients with infection control increased from 16.75 % after one TSR to 69.2 % after two TSRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio 1.22; 95 % confidence intervals, 1.07 to 1.40; p = 0.004) and smoking (OR 21.52; 95 % CI, 2.60 to 178.19; p = 0.004) as risk factors for failure. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage revision protocols can achieve acceptable results even after a second procedure. It is still unclear whether the choice of implant influences failure rates. Risk factors for failure after two-stage revision were identified. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed in order to support these findings and identify further risk factors. To reduce failure rates, programs should be established to treat or minimize risk factors in patients with PJI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5000435
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50004352016-08-27 Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study Hoell, Steffen Sieweke, Anna Gosheger, Georg Hardes, Jendrik Dieckmann, Ralf Ahrens, Helmut Streitbuerger, Arne J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision (TSR) knee arthroplasty is an established treatment, but failure to control infection still occurs in 4–50 % of cases. The aim of this study was to assess the infection eradication rate, risk factors for failure, and the clinical outcome after two-stage revision knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This retrospective study included 59 patients who had undergone at least one two-stage revision procedure due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Demographic data, comorbidities, types of implant, and complications were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify risk factors for failure. RESULTS: The infections were controlled in 55 patients (93.2 %). The follow-up period was 4.1 (±2.7) years. Infection control was achieved after the first TSR in 42 patients (71.2 %) and after the second TSR in 13 (76.5 %). The percentage of arthrodesis procedures in patients with infection control increased from 16.75 % after one TSR to 69.2 % after two TSRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio 1.22; 95 % confidence intervals, 1.07 to 1.40; p = 0.004) and smoking (OR 21.52; 95 % CI, 2.60 to 178.19; p = 0.004) as risk factors for failure. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage revision protocols can achieve acceptable results even after a second procedure. It is still unclear whether the choice of implant influences failure rates. Risk factors for failure after two-stage revision were identified. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed in order to support these findings and identify further risk factors. To reduce failure rates, programs should be established to treat or minimize risk factors in patients with PJI. BioMed Central 2016-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5000435/ /pubmed/27562546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0428-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hoell, Steffen
Sieweke, Anna
Gosheger, Georg
Hardes, Jendrik
Dieckmann, Ralf
Ahrens, Helmut
Streitbuerger, Arne
Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title_full Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title_fullStr Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title_full_unstemmed Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title_short Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
title_sort eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5000435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27562546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0428-4
work_keys_str_mv AT hoellsteffen eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT siewekeanna eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT goshegergeorg eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT hardesjendrik eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT dieckmannralf eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT ahrenshelmut eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy
AT streitbuergerarne eradicationratesriskfactorsandimplantselectionintwostagerevisionkneearthroplastyamidtermfollowupstudy