Aims. Periprosthetic joint
Aims. A revision for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The aim of this study was to examine whether socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher risk of
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against
Aims. We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint
Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for
Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint
Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint
Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint
This meta analysis address the relationship between
Aims. This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint
After a hip fracture,
The documentation of deep
Aims. Current diagnostic tools are not always able to effectively identify periprosthetic joint
Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with
Aims. One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint
High doses of intra-articular (IA) antibiotics has been shown to effectively achieve a minimal biofilm eradication concentration which could mitigate the need for removal of infected but well-ingrown cementless components of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there are concerns that percutaneous catheters could lead to multi-resistance or multi-organism peri-prosthetic joint
Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) has been reported to be as high as 60% at 5 years. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality rate for PPF revisions, compared to revision for aseptic loosening or
Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade
Mechanical failure due to dislocation, fracture and acetabular wear as well as persistence of