Despite numerous studies focusing on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. Metachronous PJIs are PJIs that can arise in the same or other artificial joints after a period of time, in patients who have previously had PJI. Between January 2010 and December 2018, 661 patients with multiple joint prostheses in situ were treated for PJI at our institution. Of these, 73 patients (11%) developed a metachronous PJI (periprosthetic infection in patients who have previously had PJI in another joint, after a lag period) after a mean time interval of 49.5 months (SD 30.24; 7 to 82.9). To identify patient-related risk factors for a metachronous PJI, the following parameters were analyzed: sex; age; BMI; and pre-existing comorbidity. Metachronous infections were divided into three groups: Group 1, metachronous infections in ipsilateral joints; Group 2, metachronous infections of the contralateral lower limb; and Group 3, metachronous infections of the lower and upper limb.Aims
Methods
Despite numerous studies on periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. This study was performed to answer the following questions: 1) Is there any difference of manifestation time of metachronous PJIs between different localizations of multiple artificial joints? 2) Can we identify any specific risk factor for metachronous PJIs for different localizations of multiple artificial joints? Between January 2010 and December 2018, 661 patients with more than one prosthetic joint at the time of PJI surgical treatment were recruited. Seventy-one developed metachronous PJI after a mean time interval of 101.4 months (range 37.5 to 161.5 months). The remaining patients were chosen as control group. The diagnosis of the PJI, including the metachronous PJI, was made according to the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. The metachronous infections were divided in group 1: metachronous infections in the same extremity (e.g. right hip and right knee); group 2: metachronous infections of the other extremity (e.g. right knee and left hip); group 3: metachronous infections of the lower extremity and upper extremity (e.g. right knee and left shoulder).Aims
Methods
In this study, we attempt to explore the differences between anatomical and non-anatomical tibial baseplates in terms of rotation and coverage. To achieve this, we divided 80 dry bones into groups, and examined them using anatomical and non-anatomical baseplates. The results of the study showed that anatomical baseplates provided better coverage and also yielded better results according to the rotational assessment. Surgeons make rotational mistakes by non-anatomic base plates, when trying to achieve best coverage. Anatomic base plates warrant better coverage according to non-anatomic base plates when both are placed at the same rotational axis. It is more possible to adjust size and rotation correctly with the anatomic tibial components.
In this study, we aim to compare total bone amount extracted in total knee arthroplasty in implant design and the bone amount extracted through intercondylar femoral notch cut. In this study, we implemented 10 implants on a total of 50 sawbones from 5 different total knee arthroplasty implant brands namely Nex-Gen Legacy (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA), Genesis 2 PS (Smith&Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA), Vanguard (Biomet Orthopedics Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA), Sigma PS (De Puy, Johnson&Johnson, Warsaw, IN, USA), Scorpio NRG PS (Stryker Co., Kalamazoo, USA). Equal or the closest sizes of each brand on anteroposterior plane were selected, and cuts were made following standard technique(see Fig 1 and 2). Extracted bone pieces were measured in terms of volume and length on three planes, and statistically analysed. The volume of all pieces available after each femoral incision was measured according to Archimedes’ principles. Furthermore, the volume of each intercondylar femoral notch pieces was measured separately from other pieces but with the same method. The measurement of intercondylar femoral notch pieces on 3 planes (medial-lateral, anterior-posterior, superior-inferior) was made using Kanon slide gauge (Ermak Ltd, Istanbul, TR). Femoral notch incision pieces were scanned with CAD/CAM technology using three-dimensional scanner 1 SeriesTM (Dental Wings Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada), and the measurements were confirmed with DWOS CAD 4.0.1 software (Dental Wings Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada)(see figure 3a-e). The volume of 10 intercondylar femoral notch pieces performed through the set of each brand was averaged, and considered as the incision volume of that particular brand.Objective
Material and Method
