Two-stage revision hip arthroplasy in a patient with a periprosthetic fracture in combination with a deep paraprosthetic infection according to the Fast-Track protocol
https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2022-181-3-85-90
Abstract
We described a clinical observation of the use of early rehabilitation (Fast-Track protocol) in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty in a patient with a periprosthetic femoral fracture complicated by the development of a deep paraprosthetic infection.
About the Authors
A. N. Tsed
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Tsed Alexandr N., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the 2nd Traumatological and Orthopedic Department of the Research Institute of Surgery and Emergency Medicine
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
N. E. Mushti
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Mushtin Nikita E., Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Assistant of the Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Orthopedic Traumatologist of the 2nd Traumatological and Orthopedic Department of the Research Institute of Surgery and Emergency Medicine
6-8, L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, 197022
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. K. Dulaev
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Dulaev Alexandr K., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Honored Doctor of the Russian Federation, Member of AO Trauma Russia, Head of the Traumatology Department, Head of the Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. A. Kozhevin
Pavlov University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Kozhevin Alexei A., Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Assistant of the Department of Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine, Orthopedic Traumatologist, Doctor of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine of the Department of Physical Methods of Treatment and Rehabilitation
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
1. Liebs T. R., Liebs T. R., Herzberg W., Rüther W. Quality adjusted life years gained by hip and knee replacement surgery and its aftercare / Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:691–700. Doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.021.
2.
3. Shubnyakov I. I., Tikhilov R. M., Nikolaev N. S. et al. Epidemiology of primary hip arthroplasty: report from register of Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics // Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2017;23(2):81–101. Doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2017-23-2-81-101. (In Russ.).
4.
5. Pivec R., Issa K., Kapadia B. H. Incidence and future projections of periprosthetic femoral fracture following primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of international registry data // J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2015;25(4):269–75. Doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2015012625.
6.
7. Voevodskaya L. Yu., Golnik V. N., Suprun E. A., Kimaikina O. V., Grigoricheva L. G. Periprosthetic infection: monitoring of the concentration of vancomycin in serum and periarticular fluid in a two-stage re-prosthesis of the knee joint // Laboratory Service. 2019;8(4):36–41. (In Russ.). Doi: 10.17116/labs2019804136.
8.
9. Gehrke T., Alijanipour P., Parvizi J. The management of an infected total knee arthroplasty // Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):20.Doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36475.
10.
11. Chen A. F., Heller S., Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infections // Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(6):1265–1281.Doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2014.08.009.
12.
13. Liporace F. A., Yoon R. S., Frank M. A. Use of an «antibiotic plate» for infected periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty // J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(3):18. Doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318216dd60.
14.
15. Müller M., Winkler T., Märdian S. et al. The worst-case scenario: treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture with coexistent periprosthetic infection-a prospective and consecutive clinical study // Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(10):1461–1470. Doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03263-y.
16.
17. Johnson J. P., Cohen E. M., Antoci V. Treatment of a periprosthetic femur fracture around an antibiotic spacer with revision and an antibiotic plate // Arthroplast Today. 2019;5(4):401–406. Doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.09.007.
18.
19. Mauerhan D. R., Lonergan R. P., Mokris J. G., Kiebzak G. M. Relationship between length of stay and dislocation rate after total hip arthroplasty // J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(8):963–7. Doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00334-6.
20.
21. Rocchi M., Stagni C., Govoni M. et al. Comparison of a fast track protocol and standard care after hip arthroplasty in the reduction of the length of stay and the early weight-bearing resumption: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial // Trials. 2021;22(1):348. Doi: 10.1186/s13063- 021-05314-5.
22.
23. Marsland D., Mears S. C. A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty // Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2012;3(3):107. Doi: 10.1177/2151458512462870.
24.
25. Schwarzkopf R., Oni J. K., Marwin S. E. Total hip arthroplasty periprosthetic femoral fractures: a review of classification and current treatment // Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(1):68–78. PMID: 24032586.
26.
27. Sherman S. L., Cunneen K. P., Walcott-Sapp S., Brause B., Westrich G. H. Custom total femur spacer and second-stage total femur arthroplasty as a novel approach to infection and periprosthetic fracture // J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(5):781. Doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.027.
Review
For citations:
Tsed A.N., Mushti N.E., Dulaev A.K., Kozhevin A.A. Two-stage revision hip arthroplasy in a patient with a periprosthetic fracture in combination with a deep paraprosthetic infection according to the Fast-Track protocol. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2022;181(3):85-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2022-181-3-85-90
Views:
300
Email this article 