• 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

在治疗有物质使用障碍的膝关节假体周围关节感染的患者中,并不存在偏见。

Bias Does Not Exist in Treating Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Among Patients With Substance Use Disorder.

出版信息

Orthopedics. 2021 May-Jun;44(3):e385-e389. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20210414-10. Epub 2021 May 1.

DOI:10.3928/01477447-20210414-10
PMID:34039201
Abstract

Debridement, antibiotics with implant retention (DAIR), and 2-stage revision are standard surgical interventions for treating knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients with substance use disorder (SUD), especially addictive drug use disorder (DUD), have been shown to receive inferior medical care in many specialties compared with nonusers. The authors identified patients with a diagnosis of PJI after knee arthroplasty who received either DAIR or 2-stage revision with the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2010 to 2014. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, patients with DUD and nonusers, based on 5th Edition, criteria. Descriptive analysis was conducted to show the national trend for knee PJI treatment among the 2 patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the prevalence of DAIR and 2-stage revision between these 2 groups, adjusted for likely confounders, including age, sex, income, race, and comorbidities. Among the 11,331 patients with knee infection, 139 (1.23%) had DUD. Compared with nonusers, patients with DUD were significantly younger (<.001), had more chronic conditions (<.001), and were predominantly in lower income quartiles (=.046). The 2 groups did not differ in sex and race (=.072 and =.091, respectively). The authors found that 30.22% of patients with DUD and 36.36% of nonusers received DAIR. The difference in these proportions was not statistically significant (=.135). The results did not change after adjustment for confounding factors (=.509). The findings suggested that bias does not exist among orthopedic surgeons who choose DAIR or 2-stage revision for knee PJI among patients with DUD. [. 2021;44(3):e385-e389.].

摘要

清创术、保留植入物的抗生素治疗(DAIR)和 2 期翻修是治疗膝关节假体周围关节感染(PJI)的标准手术干预措施。有物质使用障碍(SUD)的患者,尤其是成瘾性药物使用障碍(DUD),与非使用者相比,在许多专业领域的医疗护理质量都较差。作者使用 2010 年至 2014 年全国住院患者样本(NIS)数据库,确定了膝关节置换术后诊断为 PJI 的患者,他们接受了 DAIR 或 2 期翻修。根据第 5 版标准,患者分为 DUD 组和非使用者组。进行描述性分析以显示这 2 组患者的全国膝关节 PJI 治疗趋势。使用多变量逻辑回归比较这 2 组患者之间 DAIR 和 2 期翻修的发生率,调整了可能的混杂因素,包括年龄、性别、收入、种族和合并症。在 11331 例膝关节感染患者中,有 139 例(1.23%)患有 DUD。与非使用者相比,DUD 患者明显更年轻(<.001),患有更多的慢性疾病(<.001),并且主要集中在较低的收入四分位数(=.046)。2 组患者在性别和种族方面没有差异(分别为=.072 和 =.091)。作者发现,DUD 患者中有 30.22%和非使用者中有 36.36%接受了 DAIR。这两个比例的差异没有统计学意义(=.135)。在调整混杂因素后,结果没有改变(=.509)。研究结果表明,在 DUD 患者中,骨科医生在选择 DAIR 或 2 期翻修治疗膝关节 PJI 时没有偏见。[J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;44(3):e385-e389.]。

相似文献

1
Bias Does Not Exist in Treating Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Among Patients With Substance Use Disorder.在治疗有物质使用障碍的膝关节假体周围关节感染的患者中,并不存在偏见。
Orthopedics. 2021 May-Jun;44(3):e385-e389. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20210414-10. Epub 2021 May 1.
2
Acceptable Success Rate in Patients With Periprosthetic Knee Joint Infection Treated With Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention.保肢清创术联合抗生素治疗治疗人工膝关节置换术后感染的可接受成功率。
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2):365-368. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.088. Epub 2018 Oct 9.
3
Failed Debridement and Implant Retention Does Not Compromise the Success of Subsequent Staged Revision in Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty.感染性全膝关节置换术中清创和保留植入物失败并不影响后续分期翻修的成功率。
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jun;34(6):1214-1220.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.066. Epub 2019 Feb 2.
4
Does Prior Failed Debridement Compromise the Outcome of Subsequent Two-Stage Revision Done for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?初次清创失败是否会影响全膝关节置换术后假体周围关节感染二期翻修的结果?
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Aug;33(8):2588-2594. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.087. Epub 2018 Mar 9.
5
Infection After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A High Risk of Subsequent Complications.单髁膝关节置换术后感染:后续并发症风险高。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jan;477(1):70-77. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000372.
6
A retrospective comparative study of infection control rate and clinical outcome between open debridement using antibiotic-impregnated cement beads and a two-stage revision in acute periprosthetic knee joint infection.抗生素骨水泥珠链一期旷置清创与二期翻修治疗急性人工膝关节周围感染的感染控制率及临床疗效的回顾性对比研究
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan;99(4):e18891. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018891.
7
The outcomes of acute periprosthetic joint infection following unicompartmental knee replacement managed with early debridement, Antibiotics, and implant retention.单髁膝关节置换术后早期清创术、抗生素治疗和保留假体治疗急性假体周围关节感染的结果。
Knee. 2024 Mar;47:13-20. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2023.12.001. Epub 2024 Jan 2.
8
Functional outcome of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention in periprosthetic joint infection involving the hip: a case-control study.清创、抗生素治疗及保留植入物治疗髋关节假体周围感染的功能结局:一项病例对照研究
Bone Joint J. 2017 May;99-B(5):614-622. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2016-0562.R2.
9
Salvage procedure for chronic periprosthetic knee infection: the application of DAIR results in better remission rates and infection-free survivorship when used with topical degradable calcium-based antibiotics.慢性假体周围膝关节感染的挽救性治疗:局部应用可降解的钙基抗生素时,采用 DAI 治疗可获得更好的缓解率和无感染生存率。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Sep;28(9):2823-2834. doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05627-8. Epub 2019 Jul 18.
10
Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention after revision arthroplasty : antibiotic mismatch, timing, and repeated DAIR associated with poor outcome.翻修术后清创、抗生素和植入物保留:抗生素不匹配、时机和重复的 DAIR 与不良结局相关。
Bone Joint J. 2022 Apr;104-B(4):464-471. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B4.BJJ-2021-1264.R1.

引用本文的文献

1
Rates and Outcomes of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Persons Who Inject Drugs.注射吸毒者的人工关节感染发生率和结果。
J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jan;38(1):152-157. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.07.018. Epub 2022 Aug 3.