Suppr超能文献

感染性全膝关节置换的两阶段翻修手术:使用初次膝关节置换植入物作为临时间隔物可获得合理功能和高成功率。

Two-stage revision surgery for infected total knee replacements: reasonable function and high success rate with the use of primary knee replacement implants as temporary spacers.

作者信息

Marson Ben Arthur, Walters Samuel T, Bloch Benjamin V, Sehat Khosrow

机构信息

Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Service, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Jan;28(1):109-115. doi: 10.1007/s00590-017-2016-7. Epub 2017 Aug 5.

Abstract

Two-stage revision surgery for infected total knee replacements remains the gold standard treatment. Articulating spacers are preferred to static spacers for improved functional outcome. Articulating spacers made of cement can be prone to fracture, may not be suitable for full weight bearing, create abrasion debris and necessitate second-stage revision surgery. An alternative is the use of primary knee replacement implants as temporary spacers. With this technique, implants are loosely cemented into place at time of revision, allow the patient reasonable mobility and an ability to fully weight bear and can obviate the need for second-stage surgery. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing revision for infection over two years was conducted. Patients were clinically assigned to single- or two-stage revision. Patients who had a temporary knee replacement, that is, a primary knee replacement used as an articulating spacer, were identified and contacted to complete an Oxford Knee Score. Time to second stage and recurrence was identified from the notes 23 patients received temporary knee replacements. Of these, one patient died, 13 proceeded to a second-stage revision and nine remain in situ. Median time to second-stage revision was 19 weeks [range 11-27]. No patients had re-infection. Median follow-up for ongoing temporary knee replacements was 43 weeks [range 24-90]. Four temporary implants had survived for longer than 1 year. Median Oxford Knee Score was 26 [23-32] and satisfaction score was 8 out of 10 [8-8]. These early results show that knee replacement implants used as spacers provide a good alternative to cement-based articulating spacers with low re-infection rates. Their additional cost when compared with cement spacers is offset by the fact that many patients achieve adequate function and frail patients can avoid a revision procedure. Level of evidence Case series, Level IV.

摘要

感染性全膝关节置换的两阶段翻修手术仍然是金标准治疗方法。为了改善功能结局,活动型间隔器比静态间隔器更受青睐。骨水泥制成的活动型间隔器容易骨折,可能不适合完全负重,会产生磨损碎屑,并且需要二期翻修手术。一种替代方法是使用初次膝关节置换植入物作为临时间隔器。采用这种技术,在翻修时将植入物用骨水泥松散地固定到位,使患者具有合理的活动能力和完全负重的能力,并且可以避免二期手术。对所有在两年内接受感染翻修手术的患者进行了回顾性研究。根据临床情况将患者分为单阶段或两阶段翻修。确定并联系了接受临时膝关节置换(即使用初次膝关节置换植入物作为活动型间隔器)的患者,以完成牛津膝关节评分。从病历中确定二期手术时间和复发情况。23例患者接受了临时膝关节置换。其中,1例患者死亡,13例进行了二期翻修,9例仍保留原位。二期翻修的中位时间为19周[范围11 - 27周]。没有患者再次感染。正在使用临时膝关节置换的患者的中位随访时间为43周[范围24 - 90周]。4个临时植入物存活时间超过1年。牛津膝关节评分中位数为26[23 - 32],满意度评分为8分(满分10分)[8 - 8分]。这些早期结果表明,用作间隔器的膝关节置换植入物是骨水泥型活动型间隔器的良好替代方案,再感染率低。与骨水泥间隔器相比,其额外成本因许多患者获得足够功能且体弱患者可避免翻修手术这一事实而得到抵消。证据水平:病例系列,IV级。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验