Skip to main content

Table 1 Reasons for a one-step revision differentiated for joint and number of revisions per year 2020

From: Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

  EPZ with PJI (n = 277)1
hip
EPZ with PJI (n = 255)1
knee
< 50 50–100 101–200 > 200 p < 50 50–100 101–200 > 200 p
n = 135 n = 90 n = 38 n = 14 Chi2 n = 125 n = 81 n = 36 n = 13 Chi2
Early Infection 80.7% 77.8% 86.8% 78.6% 0.362 79.2% 70.4% 80.6% 84.6% 0.065
Tissue damage 44.4%a 35.6%a, b 26.3%b 50.0%a 0.003 42.4%a, b 37.0%a, b 25.0%b 53.8%a < 0.001
Age 36.3%a, b 26.7%b 31.6%a, b 50.0%a 0.005 36.8%a, b 28.4%b 36.1%a, b 53.8%a 0.002
Causative pathogens 23.7% 28.9% 39.5% 28.6% 0.104 24.8% 28.4% 41.7% 30.8% 0.054
Others 14.1% 20.0% 18.4% 28.6% 0.058 12.0%a 21.0%a, b 16.7%a, b 30.8%b 0.007
  1. 1 Number of centres, that performed one-step revision at all. Statistical analysis was performed separately for hip and knee revision surgeries for each of indicated reasons with Pearson’s chi-squared test. Different superscript letters in a row indicate significant differences in the Bonferroni post hoc test between the subgroups