↓ Skip to main content

Periprosthetic joint infections in modular endoprostheses of the lower extremities: a retrospective observational study in 101 patients

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Periprosthetic joint infections in modular endoprostheses of the lower extremities: a retrospective observational study in 101 patients
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13037-016-0095-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dirk Zajonz, Almut Zieme, Torsten Prietzel, Michael Moche, Solveig Tiepoldt, Andreas Roth, Christoph Josten, Georg Freiherr von Salis-Soglio, Christoph- E. Heyde, Mohamed Ghanem

Abstract

Modular mega-endoprosthesis systems are used to bridge very large bone defects and have become a widespread method in orthopaedic surgery for the treatment of tumours and revision arthroplasty. However, the indications for the use of modular mega-endoprostheses must be carefully considered. Implanting modular endoprostheses requires major, complication-prone surgery in which the limited salvage procedures should always be borne in mind. The management of periprosthetic infection is particularly difficult and beset with problems. Given this, the present study was designed to gauge the significance of periprosthetic infections in connection with modular mega-implants in the lower extremities among our own patients. Patients who had been fitted with modular endoprosthesis on a lower extremity at our department between September 1994 and December 2011 were examined retrospectively. A total of 101 patients with 114 modular prostheses were identified. Comprising 30 men (29.7 %) and 71 women (70.3 %), their average age at the time of surgery was 67 years (18-92 years). The average follow-up period was 27 months (5 months and 2 weeks to 14 years and 11 months) and the drop-out rate was about 8.8 %. Altogether, there were 19 (17.7 %) endoprosthesis infections: 3 early infections and 16 late or delayed infections. The pathogen spectrum was dominated by coagulase-negative staphylococci (36 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (16 %), including 26 % multi-resistant pathogens. Reinfection occurred in 37 % of cases of infection. Tumours were followed by significantly fewer infections than the other indications. Infections were twice as likely to occur after previous surgery. In our findings modular endoprostheses (18 %) are much more susceptible to infection than primary endoprostheses (0.5-2,5 %). Infection is the most common complication alongside the dislocation of proximal femur endoprostheses. Consistent, radical surgery is essential - although even with an adequate treatment strategy, the recurrence rate is very high. Unfortunately, the functional results are frequently unsatisfactory, with amputation often being the last resort. Therefore, the indication for implantation must be carefully considered and discussed in great detail, especially in the case of multimorbid patients with previous joint infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#169
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,343
of 409,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.