Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 2 | Pages 213 - 221
1 Feb 2021
Morgenstern M Kuehl R Zalavras CG McNally M Zimmerli W Burch MA Vandendriessche T Obremskey WT Verhofstad MHJ Metsemakers WJ

Aims

The principle strategies of fracture-related infection (FRI) treatment are debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant retention (DAIR) or debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant removal/exchange. Increasing the period between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery is believed to be associated with higher failure rates after DAIR. However, a clear time-related cut-off has never been scientifically defined. This systematic review analyzed the influence of the interval between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery on success rates after DAIR.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection, investigating the outcome after DAIR procedures of long bone FRIs in clinical studies published until January 2020.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 3 | Pages 330 - 336
1 Mar 2017
Sendi P Lötscher PO Kessler B Graber P Zimmerli W Clauss M

Aims

To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less than two years.

Patients and Methods

Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published algorithm.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 6 | Pages 772 - 777
1 Jun 2014
Kessler B Knupp M Graber P Zwicky L Hintermann B Zimmerli W Sendi P

The treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the ankle is not standardised. It is not clear whether an algorithm developed for hip and knee PJI can be used in the management of PJI of the ankle. We evaluated the outcome, at two or more years post-operatively, in 34 patients with PJI of the ankle, identified from a cohort of 511 patients who had undergone total ankle replacement. Their median age was 62.1 years (53.3 to 68.2), and 20 patients were women. Infection was exogenous in 28 (82.4%) and haematogenous in six (17.6%); 19 (55.9%) were acute infections and 15 (44.1%) chronic. Staphylococci were the cause of 24 infections (70.6%). Surgery with retention of one or both components was undertaken in 21 patients (61.8%), both components were replaced in ten (29.4%), and arthrodesis was undertaken in three (8.8%). An infection-free outcome with satisfactory function of the ankle was obtained in 23 patients (67.6%). The best rate of cure followed the exchange of both components (9/10, 90%). In the 21 patients in whom one or both components were retained, four had a relapse of the same infecting organism and three had an infection with another organism. Hence the rate of cure was 66.7% (14 of 21). In these 21 patients, we compared the treatment given to an algorithm developed for the treatment of PJI of the knee and hip. In 17 (80.9%) patients, treatment was not according to the algorithm. Most (11 of 17) had only one criterion against retention of one or both components. In all, ten of 11 patients with severe soft-tissue compromise as a single criterion had a relapse-free survival. We propose that the treatment concept for PJI of the ankle requires adaptation of the grading of quality of the soft tissues.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:772–7.