Hartmann Rebecca, Grubhofer Florian, Waibel Felix W A, Götschi Tobias, Viehöfer Arnd F, Wirth Stephan H
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute for Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Balgrist Campus, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct;39(10):2151-2158. doi: 10.1002/jor.24938. Epub 2020 Dec 20.
An established treatment strategy in surgical site infection after hindfoot and ankle surgery is a two-stage procedure with debridement and placement of a cement spacer, followed by antibiotic treatment and secondary arthrodesis. However, there is little evidence to favor this treatment over a one-stage procedure with debridement, followed by primary arthrodesis with an Ilizarov external fixator and antibiotic treatment. We compared the infection control and clinical and radiological outcome of a two-stage and a one-stage procedure. In this study, 7 patients with a two-stage revision and 11 patients with a one-stage revision between 2005 and 2015 were included. The primary outcome was infection control (absence of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society PJI criteria) 2 years after the ankle or hindfoot arthrodesis. Secondary outcome measures were the AOFAS hindfoot score and radiological consolidation rate. Infection control was 85% (6 out of 7 patients) in the two-stage group and 81% (9 out of 11 patients) in the one-stage group (p = 1.0). One patient (14%) of the two-stage and two patients (18%) in the one-stage group needed below-knee amputation. In the two-stage group, the mean postoperative AOFAS score was 74.8 (SD: ±11.3) versus 71.7 (SD: ±17.8) in the one-stage group. Radiological consolidation could be achieved in 71% in the spacer group (n = 5) and in 72% in the Ilizarov external fixator group (n = 9). Infection control, AOFAS score, and radiologic consolidation of hindfoot and ankle arthrodesis were comparable in both groups of patients with complicated postsurgical hindfoot or ankle infections.
后足和踝关节手术后手术部位感染的既定治疗策略是两阶段手术,包括清创和放置骨水泥间隔物,随后进行抗生素治疗和二期关节融合术。然而,几乎没有证据表明这种治疗方法优于一阶段手术,即清创后采用伊里扎洛夫外固定器进行一期关节融合术并进行抗生素治疗。我们比较了两阶段和一阶段手术的感染控制情况以及临床和影像学结果。在本研究中,纳入了2005年至2015年间7例接受两阶段翻修手术的患者和11例接受一阶段翻修手术的患者。主要结局是踝关节或后足关节融合术后2年的感染控制情况(符合肌肉骨骼感染学会假体周围感染标准)。次要结局指标是美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)后足评分和影像学融合率。两阶段组的感染控制率为85%(7例患者中的6例),一阶段组为81%(11例患者中的9例)(p = 1.0)。两阶段组有1例患者(14%)和一阶段组有2例患者(18%)需要进行膝下截肢。在两阶段组中,术后AOFAS评分的平均值为74.8(标准差:±11.3),而一阶段组为71.7(标准差:±17.8)。骨水泥间隔物组(n = 5)的影像学融合率为71%,伊里扎洛夫外固定器组(n = 9)为72%。在两组患有复杂的后足或踝关节手术后感染的患者中,后足和踝关节融合术的感染控制、AOFAS评分和影像学融合情况相当。