Pdf Similar Risk Of Re Revision In Patients After One Or Two Stage The age and sex adjusted hr of re infection for two stage revision was 1.70 (0.58–5.00) when compared with one stage revision. the association remained consistently absent after further. Risk of re revision was analysed using kaplan meier analysis with log rank test and cox regression analysis. the cumulative survival rate was similar in the two groups at 15 years after surgery (p = 0.1). adjusting for covariates, the risk for re revision due to all causes did not differ between patients who were operated on with the one or.
Jcm Free Full Text Similar Risk Of Re Revision In Patients After Late chronic infection is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (tha) and is often treated with surgery. the one stage surgical procedure is believed to be the more advantageous from a patient and cost perspective, but there is no consensus on whether the one or two stage procedure is the better option. we analysed the risk for re revision in infected primary thas repaired. Re revision, regardless of cause, was set as the primary outcome. analysis of re revision due to aseptic loosening and infection was also performed and used as secondary outcomes. the difference in risk for re revision between one and two stage revision surgery was analysed using the kaplan–meier survival analysis and log rank test. The difference in risk for re revision between one and two stage revision surgery was analysed using the kaplan–meier survival analysis and log rank test. the survival analysis was truncated at 15 years after surgery, after which the number of at risk patients dropped below 100 cases. Register and the study groups were patients who had undergone a one stage (n = 404) or two stage (n = 1250) revision due to infection. risk of re revision was analysed using kaplan–meier analysis with log rank test and cox regression analysis. the cumulative survival rate was similar in the two groups at 15 years after surgery (p = 0.1).
Jcm Free Full Text Similar Risk Of Re Revision In Patients After The difference in risk for re revision between one and two stage revision surgery was analysed using the kaplan–meier survival analysis and log rank test. the survival analysis was truncated at 15 years after surgery, after which the number of at risk patients dropped below 100 cases. Register and the study groups were patients who had undergone a one stage (n = 404) or two stage (n = 1250) revision due to infection. risk of re revision was analysed using kaplan–meier analysis with log rank test and cox regression analysis. the cumulative survival rate was similar in the two groups at 15 years after surgery (p = 0.1). Svensson k, rolfson o, kärrholm j, mohaddes m. similar risk of re revision in patients after one or two stage surgical revision of infected total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of revisions in the swedish hip arthroplasty register 1979–2015. j clin med. 2019;8(4):485. Point 3: while the numbers for re revision expressed in percentage is similar for one and two stage groups, the numbers themselves are significantly different for the two cases with two stage revision far exceeding one stage revision procedures. the same is true for the cases of re revision due to infection and aseptic loosening.
Pdf Detailed Revision Risk Analysis After Single Vs Two Stage Svensson k, rolfson o, kärrholm j, mohaddes m. similar risk of re revision in patients after one or two stage surgical revision of infected total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of revisions in the swedish hip arthroplasty register 1979–2015. j clin med. 2019;8(4):485. Point 3: while the numbers for re revision expressed in percentage is similar for one and two stage groups, the numbers themselves are significantly different for the two cases with two stage revision far exceeding one stage revision procedures. the same is true for the cases of re revision due to infection and aseptic loosening.
Post Operative Clinical Outcomes Following One And Two Stage Revision
Comments are closed.