Survivorship of Megaprostheses in Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty for Septic and Aseptic Indications: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

Infection Megaprosthesis Revision arthroplasty

Journal

Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
received: 31 12 2019
revised: 10 04 2020
accepted: 02 05 2020
entrez: 9 7 2020
pubmed: 9 7 2020
medline: 9 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The use of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients has been associated with complication rates greater than 50%. In patients with prior periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with subsequent two-stage reimplantation, this complication rate may be even higher. This study was to investigate the outcomes of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients undergoing revision hip/knee arthroplasty. We retrospectively studied patients who underwent megaprosthesis replacements from 1999 to 2017 at 5 hospitals with minimum 24 months of follow-up. Patients were stratified based on history of prior PJI (septic vs aseptic) and location of the megaprosthesis (the hip or knee). Postoperative complications were classified as soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural failure, and infection. Of the 42 patients, 19 were in the septic cohort and 23 were in the aseptic cohort. The overall complication rate was 28.6%. Complication rates for the septic and aseptic cohorts were 32% and 26%, respectively ( There is no difference in the postoperative complication rates between the septic or aseptic cohorts undergoing revision hip or knee megaprosthesis replacements. In patients with prior PJI, proximal femoral replacements have improved short-term survivorship compared with distal femoral or proximal tibial replacements.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The use of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients has been associated with complication rates greater than 50%. In patients with prior periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with subsequent two-stage reimplantation, this complication rate may be even higher. This study was to investigate the outcomes of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients undergoing revision hip/knee arthroplasty.
METHODS METHODS
We retrospectively studied patients who underwent megaprosthesis replacements from 1999 to 2017 at 5 hospitals with minimum 24 months of follow-up. Patients were stratified based on history of prior PJI (septic vs aseptic) and location of the megaprosthesis (the hip or knee). Postoperative complications were classified as soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural failure, and infection.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 42 patients, 19 were in the septic cohort and 23 were in the aseptic cohort. The overall complication rate was 28.6%. Complication rates for the septic and aseptic cohorts were 32% and 26%, respectively (
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
There is no difference in the postoperative complication rates between the septic or aseptic cohorts undergoing revision hip or knee megaprosthesis replacements. In patients with prior PJI, proximal femoral replacements have improved short-term survivorship compared with distal femoral or proximal tibial replacements.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32637519
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.05.004
pii: S2352-3441(20)30088-1
pmc: PMC7330426
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

475-479

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Authors.

Références

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 May 22;18(1):206
pubmed: 28532493
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2606521
pubmed: 28050552
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Oct 5;93(19):1842-52
pubmed: 22005871
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Apr;31(4):193-8
pubmed: 12008848
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Dec 12;17(1):498
pubmed: 27955655
Int Orthop. 2019 Oct;43(10):2227-2233
pubmed: 30415464
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16 Suppl 1:S33-8
pubmed: 18612011
Open Orthop J. 2014 Oct 17;8:384-9
pubmed: 25352933
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Apr 17;101(8):745-754
pubmed: 30994593
J Orthop Traumatol. 2010 Sep;11(3):167-74
pubmed: 20811922
Acta Biomed. 2017 Jun 07;88(2S):129-138
pubmed: 28657574
Injury. 2014 Dec;45 Suppl 6:S105-10
pubmed: 25457328
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2008;18(3):239-51
pubmed: 20001895
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Nov;29(11):2117-21
pubmed: 25115232
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Dec;20(12):2513-8
pubmed: 22392068
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 May;89(5):1036-43
pubmed: 17473141
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):418-29
pubmed: 21368074
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Jun 15;26(12):e249-e257
pubmed: 29781818
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jan 31;20(1):47
pubmed: 30704448

Auteurs

Eric L Smith (EL)

Department of Orthopaedics, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Akash Shah (A)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Sung Jun Son (SJ)

Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Ruijia Niu (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Carl T Talmo (CT)

Department of Orthopaedics, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Ayesha Abdeen (A)

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Muzna Ali (M)

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

John Pinski (J)

Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Matthew Gordon (M)

Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Santiago Lozano-Calderon (S)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Hany S Bedair (HS)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Classifications MeSH