Display options
Cite
Hanusrichter Y, Frieler S, Gessmann J, et al. Verbessert die Implementierung des PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Behandlungsalgorithmus die Therapie chronischer periprothetischer Knieprotheseninfektionen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study. Z Orthop Unfall. 2021;doi: 10.1055/a-1562-2874.
Hanusrichter, Y., Frieler, S., Gessmann, J., Schulte, M., Krejczy, M., Schildhauer, T., & Baecker, H. (2021). Verbessert die Implementierung des PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Behandlungsalgorithmus die Therapie chronischer periprothetischer Knieprotheseninfektionen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie, . https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1562-2874
Hanusrichter, Yannik, et al. "Verbessert die Implementierung des PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Behandlungsalgorithmus die Therapie chronischer periprothetischer Knieprotheseninfektionen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie." Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1562-2874
Hanusrichter Y, Frieler S, Gessmann J, Schulte M, Krejczy M, Schildhauer T, Baecker H. Verbessert die Implementierung des PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Behandlungsalgorithmus die Therapie chronischer periprothetischer Knieprotheseninfektionen? Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study. Z Orthop Unfall. 2021 Nov 09; doi: 10.1055/a-1562-2874. Epub 2021 Nov 09. German. PMID: 34753193.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Z Orthop Unfall. 2021 Nov 09; doi: 10.1055/a-1562-2874. Epub 2021 Nov 09.

Does the Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation Treatment Algorithm Improve the Outcome of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections? Mid-Term Results of a Prospective Study.

Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie

[Article in German]
Yannik Hanusrichter, Sven Frieler, Jan Gessmann, Martin Schulte, Martin Krejczy, Thomas Schildhauer, Hinnerk Baecker

Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Trauma Surgery, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
  2. Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, United States.
  3. Seattle Science Foundation, Seattle Science Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States.
  4. Hansjörg Wyss Hip and Pelvic Center, Swedish Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States.

PMID: 34753193 DOI: 10.1055/a-1562-2874

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several treatment options for chronic periprosthetic joint infections have been published in the current literature, with an on-going discussion to determine effective management algorithms.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of the two-stage exchange procedure in revision TKA prior to and after implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation treatment algorithm. The primary endpoints were defined as (i) revisions during the interval time, (ii) duration of the interval time and (iii) successful PJI eradication.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 02/2013 and 09/2016, 122 patients were included in a single-centre cohort analysis. 55 patients were treated according to the previously used algorithm (K1) and 67 according to the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation algorithm (K2). A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was set as the inclusion criterion. Successful eradication of infection was defined in accordance with the consensus criteria by Diaz-Ledezma et al. RESULTS: Successful eradication was achieved in 42 (67%) patients in K1 and 47 (85.5%) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). The mean interval time was 88 days (range 51 - 353) in K1 and 52 days (range 42 - 126) in K2 (p ≤ 0.005). In K1, a mean of 0.8 (range 0 - 6) revisions were necessary during the interval period compared with 0.5 (range 0 - 4) in K2 (p = 0.066).

CONCLUSION: Implementation of the PRO-IMPLANT treatment algorithm led to significant improvement in the outcome of periprosthetic joint infections. During mid-term follow-up, infection eradication was highly successful, with decreases in the interval time as well as the number of revisions.

Thieme. All rights reserved.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. med. Hinnerk Baecker receives payments as a speaker from Zimmer Biomet, P. Brehm, Infectopharm and Aesculap AG./Dr. med. Hinnerk Baecker erhält ein Honorar als Referent von Zimmer Biomet, P. Brehm

Publication Types