Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 2 | Pages 158 - 165
1 Feb 2023
Sigmund IK Yeghiazaryan L Luger M Windhager R Sulzbacher I McNally MA

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal deep tissue specimen sample number for histopathological analysis in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

In this retrospective diagnostic study, patients undergoing revision surgery after total hip or knee arthroplasty (n = 119) between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Multiple specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule were obtained for histopathological analysis at revision arthroplasty. Based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013 criteria, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria, and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021 criteria, PJI was defined. Using a mixed effects logistic regression model, the sensitivity and specificity of the histological diagnosis were calculated. The optimal number of periprosthetic tissue specimens for histopathological analysis was determined by applying the Youden index.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 3 | Pages 515 - 521
1 Mar 2021
van den Kieboom J Tirumala V Box H Oganesyan R Klemt C Kwon Y

Aims

Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI.

Methods

A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 2 | Pages 229 - 233
1 Feb 2009
Kempshall PJ Metcalfe A Forster MC

As part of the government’s initiative to reduce waiting times for major joint surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust sent 224 patients (258 knees) to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement. The Kinemax total knee replacement system was used in all cases. The cumulative survival rate at three years was 79.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 69.2 to 86.8) using re-operation for any cause as an endpoint and 85.3% (95% CI 75.9 to 91.8) using aseptic revision as an endpoint. This is significantly worse than that recorded in the published literature. These poor results have resulted in a significant impact on our service.