These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Unexpected Positive Cultures in Patients Who Have a History of Septic Revision in the Same Joint.
    Author: Ribau A, Ekhtiari S, Budin M, Zanna L, Dasci MF, Gehrke T, Citak M.
    Journal: J Arthroplasty; 2023 Jun; 38(6):1141-1144. PubMed ID: 36878435.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The prevalence of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in an aseptic revision surgery of the joint with a prior septic revision in the same joint remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of UPC in that specific group. As secondary outcomes, we explored risk factors for UPC. METHODS: This retrospective study includes patients who had an aseptic revision total hip/knee arthroplasty procedure with a prior septic revision in the same joint. Patients who had less than 3 microbiology samples, without joint aspiration or with aseptic revision surgery performed <3 weeks after a septic revision were excluded. The UPC was defined as a single positive culture in a revision that the surgeon had classified as aseptic according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting. After excluding 47, a total of 92 patients were analyzed, who had a mean age of 70 years (range, 38 to 87). There were 66 (71.7%) hips and 26 (28.3%) knees. The mean time between revisions was 83 months (range, 31 to 212). RESULTS: We identified 11 (12%) UPC and in 3 cases there was a concordance of the bacteria compared to the previous septic surgery. There were no differences for UPC between hips/knees (P = .282), diabetes (P = .701), immunosuppression (P = .252), previous 1-stage or 2-stages (P = .316), causes for the aseptic revision (P = .429) and time after the septic revision (P = .773). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of UPC in this specific group was similar to those reported in the literature for aseptic revisions. More studies are needed to better interpret the results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]