Technique and timing of two-stage exchange for a infection in TKA

被引:82
作者
Burnett, R. Stephen J.
Kelly, Michael A.
Hanssen, Arlen D.
Barrack, Robert L.
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Barnes Jewish Hosp, St Louis, MO USA
[2] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Insall Scott Kelly Inst Orthopaed & Sports Med, New York, NY USA
[3] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Dept Orthopaed, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/BLO.0b013e318157eble
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Infection in total knee arthroplasty is a devastating complication. The two-stage exchange procedure has evolved as an effective treatment option. The classification and alternatives to a two-stage procedure are presented. Current diagnosis and monitoring of infection in total knee arthroplasty with laboratory, aspiration, and imaging techniques are reviewed. The timing, technique, and results of a two-stage procedure are discussed. A knee aspiration with synovial fluid cell count and culture may be a useful adjunct. The use of antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers may be considered at the first-stage surgery. Spacers may be static or articulating, intramedullary dowels, preformed or constructed in the operating room, and provide single- or multiple-agent antibiotic (and antifungal) joint space delivery. Proper technique, antibiotic dosing, and indications with these devices will avoid complications between stages. The most common complications encountered with the use of spacers include dislocation/instability, implant extrusion, overstuffing of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints, and implant or periprosthetic fracture. At the second stage of the procedure, surgical exposure, intra-operative frozen sections, assessment of bone and soft tissue defects, the integrity of the extensor mechanism, and implant selection are important factors to consider in the second-stage reimplantation revision total knee arthroplasty.
引用
收藏
页码:164 / 178
页数:15
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty [J].
Barrack, RL ;
Engh, G ;
Rorabeck, C ;
Sawhney, J ;
Woolfrey, M .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2000, 15 (08) :990-993
[2]   Comparison of surgical approaches in total knee arthroplasty [J].
Barrack, RL ;
Smith, P ;
Munn, B ;
Engh, G ;
Rorabeck, C .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1998, (356) :16-21
[3]  
BARRACK RL, 1997, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V345, P8
[4]   Infection after total knee arthroplasty [J].
Blom, AW ;
Brown, J ;
Taylor, AH ;
Pattison, G ;
Whitehouse, S ;
Bannister, GC .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2004, 86B (05) :688-691
[5]  
BOOTH RE, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V248, P57
[6]  
Borden L S, 1987, J Arthroplasty, V2, P27, DOI 10.1016/S0883-5403(87)80028-1
[7]   The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization [J].
Bozic, KJ ;
Ries, MD .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2005, 87A (08) :1746-1751
[8]  
BURNETT RSJ, 2006, 25 ANN M MID AM ORTH
[9]  
BURNETT RSJ, 2007, INFECTION LOCAL TREA
[10]  
BURNETT RSJ, 2007, ANN M MID AM ORTH AS