• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

类风湿性关节炎和非类风湿性关节炎患者人工关节周围感染的翻修膝关节置换术成功率

Success Rates of Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Rheumatoid and Non-Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

作者信息

Grzelecki Dariusz, Dudek Piotr, Marczak Dariusz, Sibinski Marcin, Olewnik Łukasz, Kowalczewski Jacek

出版信息

Orthopedics. 2019 Sep 1;42(5):e472-e476. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20190604-06. Epub 2019 Jun 13.

DOI:10.3928/01477447-20190604-06
PMID:31185124
Abstract

This study evaluated the success and failure rates as well as the final results following 2-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Particular emphasis was placed on comparing patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-RA patients. A total of 140 knees that required 2-stage revision for PJI after TKA were analyzed. Mean patient age at first revision TKA was 67.9 years (range, 43 to 89 years), and mean time from second-stage revision to final follow-up was 53.3 months (range, 26 to 127 months). Thirty-eight of the 140 knees (27.1%) demonstrated recurrence of infection after first 2-stage revision. Of these, 8 required another 2-stage revision, 25 required knee arthrodesis, and 2 required amputation; 3 patients refused further treatment or were lost to follow-up. There was no recurrence of infection. No statistically significant differences were observed between the RA and non-RA groups in terms of success or failure rate (P=.6) according to Diaz-Ledezma and Knee Society Scores (P=.3). These findings indicate reinfection rates and final results were similar in RA and non-RA patients following revision TKA for PJI. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(5):e472-e476.].

摘要

本研究评估了两阶段翻修全膝关节置换术(TKA)治疗假体周围关节感染(PJI)后的成功率、失败率以及最终结果。特别强调了对类风湿关节炎(RA)患者和非RA患者进行比较。共分析了140例TKA术后因PJI需要进行两阶段翻修的膝关节。首次翻修TKA时患者的平均年龄为67.9岁(范围43至89岁),从第二阶段翻修至最终随访的平均时间为53.3个月(范围26至127个月)。140例膝关节中有38例(27.1%)在首次两阶段翻修后出现感染复发。其中,8例需要再次进行两阶段翻修,25例需要膝关节融合术,2例需要截肢;3例患者拒绝进一步治疗或失访。未出现感染复发。根据迪亚兹 - 莱德斯马评分和膝关节协会评分,RA组和非RA组在成功率或失败率方面未观察到统计学显著差异(P = 0.6)(P = 0.3)。这些结果表明,RA患者和非RA患者在TKA翻修治疗PJI后的再感染率和最终结果相似。[《骨科》。2019年;42(5):e472 - e476。]

相似文献

1
Success Rates of Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Rheumatoid and Non-Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.类风湿性关节炎和非类风湿性关节炎患者人工关节周围感染的翻修膝关节置换术成功率
Orthopedics. 2019 Sep 1;42(5):e472-e476. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20190604-06. Epub 2019 Jun 13.
2
Comparison of two-stage revision arthroplasty and intramedullary arthrodesis in patients with failed infected knee arthroplasty.感染性膝关节置换失败患者的两阶段翻修关节成形术与髓内关节固定术的比较
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Oct;138(10):1443-1452. doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3007-9. Epub 2018 Jul 27.
3
Irrigation, Débridement, and Implant Retention for Recurrence of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study.一期翻修治疗全膝关节置换术后假体周围感染翻修术后复发的冲洗、清创和假体保留:一项匹配队列研究。
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug;34(8):1772-1775. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.009. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
4
Short-term Follow-up of Antibiotic-loaded Articulating Cement Spacers in Two-stage Revision of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Series.感染性全膝关节置换二期翻修中抗生素骨水泥关节连接型间隔物的短期随访:病例系列研究
Orthop Surg. 2018 May;10(2):128-133. doi: 10.1111/os.12381. Epub 2018 May 17.
5
Predictors of revision, prosthetic joint infection and mortality following total hip or total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a nationwide cohort study using Danish healthcare registers.类风湿关节炎患者全髋关节或全膝关节置换术后翻修、人工关节感染和死亡的预测因素:使用丹麦医疗保健登记的全国队列研究。
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Feb;77(2):281-288. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212339. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
6
The Effectiveness of Repeat Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection.重复两阶段翻修治疗难治性全膝关节置换感染的疗效。
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2):369-374. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.021. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
7
High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty.全膝关节置换术后一期翻修失败的假体周围关节感染行重复清创翻修后高返修率。
Bone Joint J. 2022 Mar;104-B(3):386-393. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B3.BJJ-2021-0481.R2.
8
Modular knee arthrodesis secures limb, mobility, improves quality of life, and leads to high infection control in periprosthetic knee infection, when revision knee arthroplasty is not an option.模块化膝关节融合术在翻修膝关节置换术不可行时,可固定肢体、保留活动能力、提高生活质量,并能有效控制假体周围膝关节感染的感染率。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Aug;141(8):1349-1360. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03907-y. Epub 2021 Apr 23.
9
Revision TKA with a distal femoral replacement is at high risk of reinfection after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic knee joint infection.对于膝关节假体周围感染的二期翻修,采用股骨远端置换的翻修 TKA 具有很高的再感染风险。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Mar;30(3):899-906. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06474-2. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
10
1.5-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infections.1.5 期关节翻修术治疗全膝关节置换术后假体周围关节感染。
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Mar;36(3):1114-1119. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.09.048. Epub 2020 Oct 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Risk factors for treatment failure in late acute periprosthetic joint infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with surgical debridement - a case-control study.类风湿关节炎患者手术清创治疗晚期急性人工关节周围感染治疗失败的危险因素——一项病例对照研究
J Bone Jt Infect. 2025 Jul 14;10(4):217-224. doi: 10.5194/jbji-10-217-2025. eCollection 2025.
2
The Causal Relationship Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Mechanical Complications of Prosthesis After Arthroplasty: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.类风湿关节炎与关节置换术后假体机械并发症之间的因果关系:一项两样本孟德尔随机化研究。
Front Genet. 2022 Apr 5;13:822448. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.822448. eCollection 2022.
3
Fluid-flow-induced flutter of a flag.
流体流动引起的旗帜飘动。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 8;102(6):1829-34. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408383102. Epub 2005 Jan 31.