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