RIBES, C.; MASQUEFA, T.; DUTRONC, H.; DE SEYNES, C.; DUPON, Michel; FABRE, T.; DAUCHY, Frédéric-Antoine

doi:10.1016/j.medmal.2019.01.013

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

Medecine Et Maladies Infectieuses. 2019-10, vol. 49, n° 7, p. 519-526

Résumé en anglais

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic knee infection is a severe complication. Confirmed criteria are lacking to choose between one-stage or two-stage prosthesis replacement to treat the infection. The one-stage replacement could lead to a satisfactory control of the infection and to better functional results. METHOD: Retrospective study conducted between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. The objectives of this study were to compare the infection outcome and functional results between the one-stage and two-stage replacement procedures. Functional results were evaluated using the IKS score, KOOS score, and SF-12 quality of life score. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent a two-stage replacement procedure and 21 patients a one-stage replacement. The average follow-up was 22 months after surgery. The infection was cured in 78% of patients who underwent a two-stage replacement and 90% of patients who underwent a one-stage replacement (P=0.3). The flexion range of motion was significantly better in the one-stage group than in the two-stage group (P=0.04). Results of the IKS score and of the KOOS score were better in the one-stage group. No difference was observed for the SF-12 score. CONCLUSION: The one-stage replacement procedure for periprosthetic knee infection was associated with a similar healing frequency as the two-stage replacement procedure, and with better knee function.< Réduire

Métadonnées

Partager cette publication !

Licence d’utilisation du document

One-stage versus two-stage prosthesis replacement for prosthetic knee infections

Langue

Ce document a été publié dans

Résumé en anglais

URI

DOI

Unités de recherche