Prosthetic joint infections : A retrospective study on the timing of reimplantation in a two-stage exchange
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_F0BF275FE5E3
Type
Actes de conférence (partie): contribution originale à la littérature scientifique, publiée à l'occasion de conférences scientifiques, dans un ouvrage de compte-rendu (proceedings), ou dans l'édition spéciale d'un journal reconnu (conference proceedings).
Sous-type
Abstract (résumé de présentation): article court qui reprend les éléments essentiels présentés à l'occasion d'une conférence scientifique dans un poster ou lors d'une intervention orale.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Prosthetic joint infections : A retrospective study on the timing of reimplantation in a two-stage exchange
Titre de la conférence
European Bone And Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 34th Annual Meeting:
Adresse
Lisbon, Portugal, 10 - 12 September 2015
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2015
Volume
97-B
Série
Bone & Joint Journal Orthopaedic Proceedings
Pages
51
Langue
anglais
Résumé
Different therapeutic options for prosthetic joint infections exist, but surgery remains the key. With a two-stage exchange procedure, a success rate above 90% can be expected. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal duration between explantation and the reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes between short-interval and long-interval two-stage exchanges.
Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis
145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19-103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10-402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5-152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table.
The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome.
Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis
145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19-103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10-402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5-152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table.
The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome.
Site de l'éditeur
Création de la notice
07/01/2016 16:43
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 17:18
Données d'usage
