PulseTrendingJournal ClubResearchersJournalsExplore
Instagram
HomeTrendingJournal ClubExplore
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2009Acta OrthopaedicaOpen Access

Low rate of infected knee replacements in a nationwide series—is it an underestimate?

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

EJEsa JämsenKHKaisa HuotariHHHeini Huhtala

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Registry-based cohort study reveals infection rates after knee replacement, indicating arthroplasty registries miss substantial non-revision reoperations.

Key Points

  • To estimate the incidence of early infection-related reoperations after primary and revision knee replacements using linked nationwide register data.
  • Searched the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR) for primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs), primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), and revision TKAs performed between 1997 and 2003.
  • Cross-referenced FAR revision data with the national Hospital Discharge Register (HDR) to capture additional reoperations including debridements, partial/total revisions, resection arthroplasties, arthrodeses, and amputations.
  • Within the first postoperative year, reoperation rates due to infection were 0.33% (95% CI: 0.13–0.84) for primary UKAs, 0.52% (95% CI: 0.45–0.60) for primary TKAs, and 1.91% (95% CI: 1.40–2.61) for revision TKAs.
  • The overall 1-year infection rate was 0.77% (95% CI: 0.69–0.86) using FAR data alone versus 0.89% (95% CI: 0.80–0.99) when combining FAR and HDR records.
  • Annual infection rates remained constant across all knee arthroplasty cohorts over the observation period, with FAR reliably capturing full revisions but missing other infection-related surgical interventions.

Cite This Study

Jämsen et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6ffb9aa528af2d65c34339https://doi.org/10.3109/17453670902947432
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share