The Journal of arthroplasty · 2021
Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Strony John, Sukhonthamarn Kamolsak, Tan Timothy L, Parvizi Javad, Brown Scot A, Nazarian David G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.
RESULTS: Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.
CONCLUSION: PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.
RESULTS: Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.
CONCLUSION: PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.