首页    期刊浏览 2024年11月24日 星期日
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy
  • 本地全文:下载
  • 作者:Mohamed Ghanem ; Dirk Zajonz ; Juliane Bollmann
  • 期刊名称:GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW
  • 印刷版ISSN:2193-8091
  • 电子版ISSN:2193-8091
  • 出版年度:2016
  • 卷号:5
  • DOI:10.3205/iprs000091
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:German Medical Science
  • 摘要:

    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.

  • 关键词:periprosthetic infection; endoprosthesis infection; cemented spacer therapy; total knee replacement
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有