Mabry Tad M, Jacofsky David J, Haidukewych George J, Hanssen Arlen D
Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Nov;464:11-5. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31806a9191.
We analyzed knee arthrodesis for the infected total knee replacement (TKR) using two different fixation techniques. Patients undergoing knee arthrodesis for infected TKR were identified and rates of successful fusion and recurrence of infection were compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Eighty-five consecutive patients who underwent knee arthrodesis were followed until union, nonunion, amputation, or death. External fixation achieved successful fusion in 41 of 61 patients and was associated with a 4.9% rate of deep infection. Fusion was successful in 23 of 24 patients with intramedullary (IM) nailing and was associated with an 8.3% rate of deep infection. We observed similar fusion and infection rates with the two techniques. Thirty-four patients (40%) had complications. Knee arthrodesis remains a reasonable salvage alternative for the difficult infected TKR. Complication rates are high irrespective of the technique, and one must consider the risks of both nonunion and infection when choosing the fixation method in this setting. IM nailing appears to have a higher rate of successful union but a higher risk of recurrent infection when compared with external fixation knee arthrodesis.
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
我们使用两种不同的固定技术分析了感染性全膝关节置换术(TKR)的膝关节融合术。确定接受感染性TKR膝关节融合术的患者,并使用Cox比例风险模型比较成功融合率和感染复发率。对连续85例行膝关节融合术的患者进行随访,直至愈合、骨不连、截肢或死亡。61例患者中41例采用外固定成功融合,深部感染率为4.9%。24例采用髓内(IM)钉固定的患者中有23例融合成功,深部感染率为8.3%。我们观察到两种技术的融合率和感染率相似。34例患者(40%)出现并发症。膝关节融合术仍然是治疗困难的感染性TKR的合理挽救选择。无论采用何种技术,并发症发生率都很高,在这种情况下选择固定方法时,必须考虑骨不连和感染的风险。与外固定膝关节融合术相比,IM钉固定似乎有更高的成功愈合率,但有更高的感染复发风险。
III级,治疗性研究。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者指南。