| Autor: |
Peng, Huiming, Zhou, Zongke, Xu, Peng, Wang, Fei, Zhu, Qinsheng, Xia, Yayi, Wang, Jincheng, Yan, Shigui, Cao, Li, Weng, Xisheng |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
International Orthopaedics; Jun2023, Vol. 47 Issue 6, p1423-1431, 9p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious hip and knee arthroplasty complication. Despite the increased incidence of primary joint replacements, there is no clear guideline for treating PJI in the Chinese mainland yet. We aim to measure the current situation and basis for surgical treatment methods of PJI in major orthopaedic hospitals in the Chinese mainland. Methods: We conducted a national survey on PJI treatment in Mainland China. Forty-one top arthroplasty centers were included, with 82.9% (34/41) response rate. The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel version 20.0 and described as numbers and percentages. Results: For acute infections, prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR) are used in all centres. For hip and knee PJI, 20.5% (7/34) and 35% (12/34) of the centres used a one-stage exchange. If applied, this treatment will necessitate the previous patients' selection for a satisfactory outcome. All centres execute the two-stage exchange. Between phases, the majority of centres implant a cemented spacer. Revisions for infected hips included 21 (4.3%) cases of DAIR, 95 (19.9%) cases of single-stage exchange, 362 (75.2%) cases of two-stage exchange, and 2 (0.007%) cases of hip dissection. Revisions for infected knee comprised 88 (19.0%) cases of DAIR, 48 (10.3%) cases of single-stage exchange, 324 (69.8%) cases of two-stage exchange, and 5 (0.02%) cases of knee fusion. Conclusions: The centers do not have a uniform PJI standard. Most patients have two-stage revision with a cemented spacer in China. These concepts can help establish treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink