Cargando…

Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection

The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pangaud, Corentin, Ollivier, Matthieu, Argenson, Jean-Noël
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31537999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003
_version_ 1783447959207149568
author Pangaud, Corentin
Ollivier, Matthieu
Argenson, Jean-Noël
author_facet Pangaud, Corentin
Ollivier, Matthieu
Argenson, Jean-Noël
author_sort Pangaud, Corentin
collection PubMed
description The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee. We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static. In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4° in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8° in the double-stage exchange group. Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two -stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:495-502. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6719605
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67196052019-09-19 Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection Pangaud, Corentin Ollivier, Matthieu Argenson, Jean-Noël EFORT Open Rev Knee The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee. We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static. In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4° in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8° in the double-stage exchange group. Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two -stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:495-502. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2019-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6719605/ /pubmed/31537999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003 Text en © 2019 The author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
spellingShingle Knee
Pangaud, Corentin
Ollivier, Matthieu
Argenson, Jean-Noël
Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title_full Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title_fullStr Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title_full_unstemmed Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title_short Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
title_sort outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31537999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003
work_keys_str_mv AT pangaudcorentin outcomeofsinglestageversustwostageexchangeforrevisionkneearthroplastyforchronicperiprostheticinfection
AT olliviermatthieu outcomeofsinglestageversustwostageexchangeforrevisionkneearthroplastyforchronicperiprostheticinfection
AT argensonjeannoel outcomeofsinglestageversustwostageexchangeforrevisionkneearthroplastyforchronicperiprostheticinfection