From the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (Ms. Treanor, Ms. Shimizu, and Ms. Barrett); the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL (Dr. Byram); and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL (Dr. Schmitt and Dr. Brown).
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2024 Sep 17;8(9). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00180. eCollection 2024 Sep 1.
Infection is among the most common reasons for revision after a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is associated with notable morbidity and mortality rates. As the demand for TJA increases, a concurrent increase in the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is also expected to rise. While previous studies have explored differences in postoperative outcomes between general and spinal anesthesia, there is limited data on the use of regional blocks in patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty for PJI. This study evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revision TJA for PJI using regional blocks.
Data from 518 patients were retrospectively collected. Patients included in the study had undergone revision TJA for PJI from January 2004 to January 2023 at a single institution. Patients undergoing same-day bilateral revisions, above-knee amputations, and aseptic revisions were excluded. Postoperative complications investigated included local complications, postoperative transfusion, wound complication, readmission, sepsis, systemic infection, spinal infection, death, persistent PJI, periprosthetic fracture, and unplanned revision surgery. Chi-square analysis was used to compare postoperative complications between procedures that used spinal or general anesthesia with regional blocks and those with spinal or general anesthesia without regional blocks.
Of the 518 patients who underwent revision TJA, 63 (12.2%) used a regional block. After surgery, 12.7% (n = 8) of patients with regional block and 23.5% (n = 107) of patients without regional block experienced persistent PJI (P = 0.076). No significant differences in wound complication (P = 0.333), readmission (P = 0.998), revision surgery (P = 0.783), and death (P = 0.588) were found between those with and without regional block use. Sepsis (P = 0.224), systemic infection (P = 0.220), and spinal infection (P = 0.998) rates within 1 year after revision TJA for PJI surgery were comparable between the two groups. No local infections were observed at the block site. A subanalysis comparing spinal and general anesthesia demonstrated comparable persistent PJI postoperatively and complication rates; however, spinal anesthesia use was associated with shorter length of stay (P = 0.003) and lower transfusion rates (P = 0.002).
The results of this study suggest that the use of regional block is not associated with an increased probability of postoperative persistent PJI, local wound complication, readmission, spinal/systemic/other infections, death, or revision surgery. Surgeons can comfortably choose regional block as a safe option for revision surgery for PJI. Consistent with previous research, patients who received spinal anesthesia had shorter hospital stays and lower transfusion rates when compared with those who received general anesthesia.
感染是全膝关节置换术后(TJA)最常见的翻修原因之一,与显著的发病率和死亡率有关。随着 TJA 需求的增加,预计假体周围关节感染(PJI)的患病率也将同时上升。虽然之前的研究已经探讨了全身麻醉和脊髓麻醉术后结局的差异,但关于区域阻滞在 PJI 行关节翻修患者中的应用的数据有限。本研究评估了使用区域阻滞行 PJI 行关节翻修的患者的术后结局。
回顾性收集了 518 例患者的数据。本研究纳入了 2004 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月在一家机构接受 PJI 行 TJA 翻修的患者。排除同期双侧翻修、膝上截肢和无菌翻修的患者。研究中调查的术后并发症包括局部并发症、术后输血、伤口并发症、再入院、脓毒症、全身感染、脊髓感染、死亡、持续性 PJI、假体周围骨折和计划外翻修手术。使用卡方分析比较使用区域阻滞与未使用区域阻滞的脊髓麻醉和全身麻醉手术之间的术后并发症。
在接受 TJA 翻修的 518 例患者中,有 63 例(12.2%)使用了区域阻滞。手术后,使用区域阻滞的患者中有 12.7%(n=8)和未使用区域阻滞的患者中有 23.5%(n=107)发生持续性 PJI(P=0.076)。使用区域阻滞与未使用区域阻滞的患者在伤口并发症(P=0.333)、再入院(P=0.998)、翻修手术(P=0.783)和死亡(P=0.588)方面无显著差异。术后 1 年内,两组患者的败血症(P=0.224)、全身感染(P=0.220)和脊髓感染(P=0.998)发生率无差异。在区域阻滞部位未观察到局部感染。脊髓麻醉和全身麻醉的亚组分析显示,术后持续性 PJI 和并发症发生率相当;然而,脊髓麻醉的使用与较短的住院时间(P=0.003)和较低的输血率(P=0.002)相关。
本研究结果表明,区域阻滞的使用与术后持续性 PJI、局部伤口并发症、再入院、脊髓/全身/其他感染、死亡或翻修手术的可能性增加无关。外科医生可以放心地选择区域阻滞作为 PJI 翻修手术的安全选择。与之前的研究一致,与接受全身麻醉的患者相比,接受脊髓麻醉的患者住院时间更短,输血率更低。