↓ Skip to main content

What Are the Frequency, Associated Factors, and Mortality of Amputation and Arthrodesis After a Failed Infected TKA?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
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
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
What Are the Frequency, Associated Factors, and Mortality of Amputation and Arthrodesis After a Failed Infected TKA?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5285-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min-Sun Son, Edmund Lau, Javad Parvizi, Michael A. Mont, Kevin J. Bozic, Steven Kurtz

Abstract

For patients with failed surgical treatment of an infected TKA, salvage operations such as arthrodesis or above-knee amputation (AKA) may be considered. Clinical and institutional factors associated with AKA and arthrodesis after a failed TKA have not been investigated in a large-scale population, and the utilization rate and trend of these measures are not well known. (1) How has the frequency of arthrodesis and AKA after infected TKA changed over the last 10 years? (2) What clinical or institutional factors are associated with patients undergoing arthrodesis or AKA? (3) What is the risk of mortality after arthrodesis or AKA? The Medicare 100% National Inpatient Claims Database was used to identify 44,466 patients 65 years of age or older who were diagnosed with an infected TKA and who underwent revision between 2005 and 2014 based on International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Overall, 1182 knee arthrodeses and 1864 AKAs were identified among the study population. One year of data before the index infection-related knee revision were used to examine patient demographic, institutional, and clinical factors, including comorbidities, hospital volumes, and surgeon volumes. We developed Cox regression models to investigate the risk of arthrodesis, AKA, and death as outcomes. In addition, the year of the index revision was included as a covariate to determine if the risk of subsequent surgical interventions was changing over time. The risk of mortality was also assessed as the event of interest using a similar multivariate Cox model for each patient group (arthrodesis, AKA) in addition to those who underwent additional revisions but who did not undergo either of the salvage procedures. The number of arthrodesis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90, p < 0.001) and amputation (HR, 0.95, p < 0.001) procedures showed a declining trend. Clinical factors associated with arthrodesis included acute renal failure (HR, 1.22 [1.06-1.41], p = 0.006), obesity (HR, 1.58 [1.35-1.84], p < 0.001), and having additional infection-related revisions (HR for 2+ additional revisions, 1.36 [1.13-1.64], p = 0.001). Higher Charlson comorbidity score (HR for a score of 5+ versus 0, 2.56 [2.12-3.14], p < 0.001), obesity (HR, 1.14 [1.00-1.30], p = 0.044), deep vein thrombosis (HR, 1.34 [1.12-1.60], p = 0.001), and additional revisions (HR for 2+ additional revisions, 2.19 [1.91-2.49], p < 0.001) were factors associated with AKA, which in turn was an independent risk factor for mortality. The risk of death increased with amputation after adjusting for age, comorbidities, and other factors (HR, 1.28 [1.20-1.37], p < 0.001), but patients who received arthrodesis did not show a change in mortality compared with the patients who did not receive arthrodesis or amputation (HR, 1.00 [0.91-1.10], p = 0.971). The findings of this study suggest that clinicians may be more aggressively attempting to preserve the knee even in the face of chronic prosthetic joint infection but also show that a greater number of revisions is associated with a greater risk of subsequent AKA or arthrodesis. The results also suggest that recommending centers with a high volume of joint arthroplasties may be a way to reduce the risk of the salvage procedures. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,752
of 7,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,401
of 324,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#52
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 324,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.