Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?
Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of arthroplasty 2019-10, Vol.34 (10), p.2461-2465 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2465 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 2461 |
container_title | The Journal of arthroplasty |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Zielinski, Matthew R. Ziemba-Davis, Mary Warth, Lucian C. Keyes, Brian J. Meneghini, R. Michael |
description | Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic knee infection using static and articulating antibiotic cement spacers.
109 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage treatment for periprosthetic knee infection were reviewed. Treatment failure, defined as repeat resection before reimplantation or recurrent infection within 6 months of reimplantation, was evaluated based on spacer type and use of IM dowels, accounting for infection type and systemic host and local extremity grade.
After exclusions for confounds, articulating spacers without IM dowels were used in 49 (57.7%) cases, articulating spacers with IM dowels in 14 cases (16.5%), and static spacers with IM dowels in 22 (25.9%) cases. Treatment success regardless of infection classification was 85.7% for articulating spacers with IM dowels, 89.8% for articulating spacers without IM dowels, and 68.2% for static spacers with IM dowels (P = .074). In chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities, treatment success remained highest in patients with articulating spacers with (90.9%) or without (92.9%) IM dowels compared with static spacers with IM dowels (68.4%) (P = .061).
Findings suggest that the use of IM dowels did not enhance infection eradication above and beyond that observed for articulating spacers alone, including in the worst cases involving chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.022 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2297126878</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0883540319304966</els_id><sourcerecordid>2297126878</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e3ea26ae98e249ea08474df34e443803f1c2feefce29fd762b82d97da72f724a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFu1DAQhi1ERZfCC3BAPnJJsMdO4khIaNWWtqJSpXY5W15nXLzKxovtpeqlz46jXThyGmnmm18zHyEfOKs54-3nTW1i_lkD433NmpoBvCIL3giolGTta7JgSomqkUyckrcpbRjjvGnkG3IqOFcgmVqQl4tAl1P2ax-yt_RmytFscdiPo4nP9CI84ZjoMiWfMvUTvYxm8NZkPz0W1qHNPkzzYPUUqodsHpHeYzq2XYj0AXdz7ipkM9LvEyJdlptj2I0m5eev78iJM2PC98d6Rn58u1ydX1e3d1c358vbykrGcoUCDbQGe4UgezRMyU4OTkiUUigmHLfgEJ1F6N3QtbBWMPTdYDpwHUgjzsinQ-4uhl97TFlvfbJYvpww7JMG6DsOrepUQeGA2hhSiuj0LvptsaE507N3vdGzdz1716zRxXtZ-njM36-Lvn8rf0UX4MsBKD7xt8eok_U4WRx8LLr0EPz_8v8A4CKWBA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2297126878</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Zielinski, Matthew R. ; Ziemba-Davis, Mary ; Warth, Lucian C. ; Keyes, Brian J. ; Meneghini, R. Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Zielinski, Matthew R. ; Ziemba-Davis, Mary ; Warth, Lucian C. ; Keyes, Brian J. ; Meneghini, R. Michael</creatorcontrib><description>Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic knee infection using static and articulating antibiotic cement spacers.
109 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage treatment for periprosthetic knee infection were reviewed. Treatment failure, defined as repeat resection before reimplantation or recurrent infection within 6 months of reimplantation, was evaluated based on spacer type and use of IM dowels, accounting for infection type and systemic host and local extremity grade.
After exclusions for confounds, articulating spacers without IM dowels were used in 49 (57.7%) cases, articulating spacers with IM dowels in 14 cases (16.5%), and static spacers with IM dowels in 22 (25.9%) cases. Treatment success regardless of infection classification was 85.7% for articulating spacers with IM dowels, 89.8% for articulating spacers without IM dowels, and 68.2% for static spacers with IM dowels (P = .074). In chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities, treatment success remained highest in patients with articulating spacers with (90.9%) or without (92.9%) IM dowels compared with static spacers with IM dowels (68.4%) (P = .061).
Findings suggest that the use of IM dowels did not enhance infection eradication above and beyond that observed for articulating spacers alone, including in the worst cases involving chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31182408</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>antibiotic spacer ; intramedullary dowel ; knee infection ; knee revision ; periprosthetic joint infection ; two-stage treatment</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2019-10, Vol.34 (10), p.2461-2465</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e3ea26ae98e249ea08474df34e443803f1c2feefce29fd762b82d97da72f724a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e3ea26ae98e249ea08474df34e443803f1c2feefce29fd762b82d97da72f724a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9602-3925</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.022$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31182408$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zielinski, Matthew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziemba-Davis, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warth, Lucian C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keyes, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meneghini, R. Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><description>Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic knee infection using static and articulating antibiotic cement spacers.
109 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage treatment for periprosthetic knee infection were reviewed. Treatment failure, defined as repeat resection before reimplantation or recurrent infection within 6 months of reimplantation, was evaluated based on spacer type and use of IM dowels, accounting for infection type and systemic host and local extremity grade.
After exclusions for confounds, articulating spacers without IM dowels were used in 49 (57.7%) cases, articulating spacers with IM dowels in 14 cases (16.5%), and static spacers with IM dowels in 22 (25.9%) cases. Treatment success regardless of infection classification was 85.7% for articulating spacers with IM dowels, 89.8% for articulating spacers without IM dowels, and 68.2% for static spacers with IM dowels (P = .074). In chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities, treatment success remained highest in patients with articulating spacers with (90.9%) or without (92.9%) IM dowels compared with static spacers with IM dowels (68.4%) (P = .061).
Findings suggest that the use of IM dowels did not enhance infection eradication above and beyond that observed for articulating spacers alone, including in the worst cases involving chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities.</description><subject>antibiotic spacer</subject><subject>intramedullary dowel</subject><subject>knee infection</subject><subject>knee revision</subject><subject>periprosthetic joint infection</subject><subject>two-stage treatment</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><issn>1532-8406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMFu1DAQhi1ERZfCC3BAPnJJsMdO4khIaNWWtqJSpXY5W15nXLzKxovtpeqlz46jXThyGmnmm18zHyEfOKs54-3nTW1i_lkD433NmpoBvCIL3giolGTta7JgSomqkUyckrcpbRjjvGnkG3IqOFcgmVqQl4tAl1P2ax-yt_RmytFscdiPo4nP9CI84ZjoMiWfMvUTvYxm8NZkPz0W1qHNPkzzYPUUqodsHpHeYzq2XYj0AXdz7ipkM9LvEyJdlptj2I0m5eev78iJM2PC98d6Rn58u1ydX1e3d1c358vbykrGcoUCDbQGe4UgezRMyU4OTkiUUigmHLfgEJ1F6N3QtbBWMPTdYDpwHUgjzsinQ-4uhl97TFlvfbJYvpww7JMG6DsOrepUQeGA2hhSiuj0LvptsaE507N3vdGzdz1716zRxXtZ-njM36-Lvn8rf0UX4MsBKD7xt8eok_U4WRx8LLr0EPz_8v8A4CKWBA</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Zielinski, Matthew R.</creator><creator>Ziemba-Davis, Mary</creator><creator>Warth, Lucian C.</creator><creator>Keyes, Brian J.</creator><creator>Meneghini, R. Michael</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9602-3925</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?</title><author>Zielinski, Matthew R. ; Ziemba-Davis, Mary ; Warth, Lucian C. ; Keyes, Brian J. ; Meneghini, R. Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-e3ea26ae98e249ea08474df34e443803f1c2feefce29fd762b82d97da72f724a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>antibiotic spacer</topic><topic>intramedullary dowel</topic><topic>knee infection</topic><topic>knee revision</topic><topic>periprosthetic joint infection</topic><topic>two-stage treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zielinski, Matthew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziemba-Davis, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warth, Lucian C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keyes, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meneghini, R. Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zielinski, Matthew R.</au><au>Ziemba-Davis, Mary</au><au>Warth, Lucian C.</au><au>Keyes, Brian J.</au><au>Meneghini, R. Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty?</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2461</spage><epage>2465</epage><pages>2461-2465</pages><issn>0883-5403</issn><eissn>1532-8406</eissn><abstract>Evidence suggests approximately 40% of intramedullary (IM) canals are culture positive at resection for infected knee arthroplasty. While commonly utilized, no clinical data on the efficacy of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels exist. We quantified treatment success with and without the use of antibiotic-eluding IM dowels in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic knee infection using static and articulating antibiotic cement spacers.
109 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage treatment for periprosthetic knee infection were reviewed. Treatment failure, defined as repeat resection before reimplantation or recurrent infection within 6 months of reimplantation, was evaluated based on spacer type and use of IM dowels, accounting for infection type and systemic host and local extremity grade.
After exclusions for confounds, articulating spacers without IM dowels were used in 49 (57.7%) cases, articulating spacers with IM dowels in 14 cases (16.5%), and static spacers with IM dowels in 22 (25.9%) cases. Treatment success regardless of infection classification was 85.7% for articulating spacers with IM dowels, 89.8% for articulating spacers without IM dowels, and 68.2% for static spacers with IM dowels (P = .074). In chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities, treatment success remained highest in patients with articulating spacers with (90.9%) or without (92.9%) IM dowels compared with static spacers with IM dowels (68.4%) (P = .061).
Findings suggest that the use of IM dowels did not enhance infection eradication above and beyond that observed for articulating spacers alone, including in the worst cases involving chronically infected poor hosts with compromised extremities.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31182408</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.022</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9602-3925</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0883-5403 |
ispartof | The Journal of arthroplasty, 2019-10, Vol.34 (10), p.2461-2465 |
issn | 0883-5403 1532-8406 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2297126878 |
source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | antibiotic spacer intramedullary dowel knee infection knee revision periprosthetic joint infection two-stage treatment |
title | Do Antibiotic Intramedullary Dowels Assist in Eradicating Infection in Two-Stage Resection for Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T04%3A52%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20Antibiotic%20Intramedullary%20Dowels%20Assist%20in%20Eradicating%20Infection%20in%20Two-Stage%20Resection%20for%20Septic%20Total%20Knee%20Arthroplasty?&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Zielinski,%20Matthew%20R.&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2461&rft.epage=2465&rft.pages=2461-2465&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft.eissn=1532-8406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2297126878%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2297126878&rft_id=info:pmid/31182408&rft_els_id=S0883540319304966&rfr_iscdi=true |