2018
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.100b2.bjj-2017-0575.r1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of bearing surface on risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty

Abstract: On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: 2018;100-B:134-42.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common cause of knee arthroplasty failure which accounts for 16% to 25% of all failed knee replacements [1][2][3][4] and is the third most common indication for revision hip arthroplasty [5][6][7][8][9]. Our previous findings indicated that the expression level of synovial fluid (SF) interleukin-16 (IL-16) in patients with PJI was higher than that in patients with aseptic loosening [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common cause of knee arthroplasty failure which accounts for 16% to 25% of all failed knee replacements [1][2][3][4] and is the third most common indication for revision hip arthroplasty [5][6][7][8][9]. Our previous findings indicated that the expression level of synovial fluid (SF) interleukin-16 (IL-16) in patients with PJI was higher than that in patients with aseptic loosening [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry showed a higher cumulative risk of revision for infection for metal-on-metal bearing surfaces (in particular, large-head metal-on-metal) compared with others at both the national and individual-surgeon level 73 . In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Hexter et al found no differences in the incidence of revision for infection when comparing metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and ceramic-on-ceramic articulations 74 .…”
Section: Risk Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is all about material costs, the involvement of specialized and hyperspecialized human resources, but also the efforts of social reintegration of the affected patients, who frequently associate different degrees of depression. In the case of Orthopedics, but also of the other surgical specialties, infection of a wound leads to the slowing down of the healing process, accompanied by an increase of the psychological stress suffered by the patient [7,9,[10][11][12]. As such, patients describe pains of greater intensity as compared to those with the same pathology, who cured without infection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are numerous implicated microbial agents, of which, the following should be mentioned: Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), coagulase-negative staphylococci, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Among these, S. aureus is the most frequently involved [7,8,[10][11][12]15,16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%