header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Access
Journals
Abstracts
Dates
Year From
Year To
Specialties
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 82 - 82
1 Jul 2022
FAILURE OF TWO-STAGE REVISION FOR TREATMENT OF KNEE ARTHROPLASTY PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION: DOES THE CAUSATIVE ORGANISM CHANGE?
Walker L Clement N Deehan D
Full Access
View article

Abstract

Introduction

The prevalence of recurrent infection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty following failure of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been reported to be 10% to 25%. There is limited literature available on repeat two stage revisions for TKA infection with only small cohorts and variable success rates.

Methodology

A retrospective cohort study investigating the outcome of two stage revision arthroplasty for treatment of TKA infection was conducted with the aim of identifying factors linked to recurrence of infection. A consecutive cohort of all microbiology intra-operative periprosthetic knee samples from a single revision arthroplasty centre between January 2010 and December 2016 was identified. The final cohort consisted of 658 samples taken during 64 patients undergoing two stage revision knee surgery for infection. Patient demographics, medical and orthopaedic history data including post-operative outcomes and subsequent treatment was obtained from the electronic records system and medical notes.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 281 - 281
1 May 2009
COMPARISON OF ‘MCKENZIE’ PHYSICAL THERAPY TREATMENT VS. A BRIEF PHYSIOTHERAPY INTERVENTION; WITH A SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Moffett JK Jackson D Gardiner E Torgerson D Coulter S Eaton S Mooney M Pickering C Green A Walker L May S Young S
Full Access
View article

Background: The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a brief intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles (Solution Finding Approach – SFA) with the McKenzie approach (McK). A secondary aim was to determine if there were any clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who responded best to the McKenzie method.

Methods: Eligible patients who were referred by GPs to physiotherapy departments in the UK with neck or back pain were randomly allocated to McK (n= 161) or to SFA (n=154) and their outcome compared at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. In addition, putative predictors within the McKenzie group were compared using univariate analysis to examine the relationship between variables and outcomes. Significant variables were assessed using multiple logistic regression analyses.

Results: Both groups demonstrated modest improvements in outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes, except 2 small but significant differences at 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, patient satisfaction was greater for McK (median 90% compared with 70% for SFA). The number of treatment successes in the McK group depended upon the definition used, but were limited. Less chronic back pain (rather than neck pain) in patients demonstrating centralisation responded best.

Conclusion: In the original RCT there were few differences between McK and SFA though modest improvements in both. In a secondary analysis of the results for the McK group there were few treatment successes according to our definition of success; these were most likely to occur in back pain patients with shorter duration symptom who demonstrated centralisation response.