ABSTRACT
ObjectivePeriprosthetic joint infections （PJI） are currently the most calamitous complication after arthroplasty. Although achievements have been made in many markers for the diagnosis of PJI， the lack of a gold standard remains a great obstacle for early diagnosis. This study aimed to investigate the association between coagulation markers and the development of PJI in patients undergoing revision total joint arthroplasty （TJA）. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study with a total of 2 517 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasties from January 2011 to January 2022 （2 394 with primary TJA， 87 with aseptic revision and 36 with PJI）. We applied univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression to analyze differences of coagulation factors between primary TJA and aseptic revision or PJI group. Receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve and area under the curve （AUC） were used to measure the diagnostic value of coagulation factors in predicting PJI. ResultsCoagulation factors and their ratios including plasma fibrinogen （FBG）， prothrombin time （PT）， thrombin time （TT）， activated partial thromboplastin time （APTT）， platelet （PLT）， mean platelet volume （MPV）， platelet distribution width （PDW）， plateletcrit （PCT）， PLT / MPV， PLT / PDW and PLT / PCT were included in this study. High FGB level was strongly correlated with the risk of PJI compared to other coagulation factors. The optimal threshold value of FBG was 4.53 g/L with a sensitivity of 47.22%， a specificity of 93.07% （Primary TJA group vs. PJI group）. Similarly， the optimal threshold value of FBG was 4.44 g/L with a sensitivity of 47.22%， a specificity of 95.40% between the other two groups （Aseptic revision group vs. PJI group）. ROC curve analysis demonstrated moderate diagnostic performance of FBG （AUC value）， indicating a potential to be a diagnostic marker for PJI. ConclusionsFBG is significantly correlated with PJI and it can be used as a potential non-invasive marker for early detection. It may serve as a safe and cost-effective tool for assessing PJI in clinical work.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Greatly importance has been attached to ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surface due to its excel ent wear resistance. But the risks of squeaking and ceramic fracture also go with it. Up til now, the choice between ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in primary total hip arthroplasty remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and safety between ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty based on meta analysis. METHODS: We electronical y searched databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Col aboration database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBMdisc) and China National Knowledge Internet for randomized control ed trials on the comparison between ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty from inception to January 2015. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Investigators severely selected the studies, extracted data and assessed the quality according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Nine randomized control ed trials were included, involving 1 231 hips with ceramic-on-ceramic prosthesis and 932 hips with ceramic-on-polyethylene prosthesis. Meta analysis showed that both bearing surfaces achieved satisfied function recovery. But ceramic-on-ceramic had significantly increased risks of squeaking and ceramic fracture, meanwhile ceramic-on-polyethylene showed significantly higher wear rate. There were no significant differences in intra- or post-operative dislocation, osteolysis and other complications and prosthesis failure with any reason between two bearing surfaces. These results suggest that during the short- to mid-term fol ow-up period, no sufficient evidence can tel that ceramic-on-ceramic was obviously super than ceramic-on-polyethylene. Long-term fol ow-up is required for further evaluation.