Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Infektionen nach Hüft- und Kniegelenkersatzoperationen und nach Spondylodesen: ein Vergleich

Infections after hip and knee replacement surgery and after spinal fusion: a comparison

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Abbreviations

BWS:

Brustwirbelsäule

CRP :

C‑reaktives Protein

HWS :

Halswirbelsäule

LWS :

Lendenwirbelsäule

Literatur

  1. Berbari EF, Marculescu C, Sia I et al (2007) Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis 45:1113–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284:1318–1322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dapunt U, Burkle C, Gunther F et al (2017) Surgical site infections following instrumented stabilization of the spine. Ther Clin Risk Manag 13:1239–1245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dapunt U, Radzuweit-Mihaljevic S, Lehner B et al (2016) Bacterial infection and implant loosening in hip and knee arthroplasty: evaluation of 209 cases. Materials (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9110871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Donlan RM, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 15:167–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunne WM Jr. (2002) Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately? Clin Microbiol Rev 15:155–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Flemming HC (2002) Biofouling in water systems—cases, causes and countermeasures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:629–640

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haenle M, Skripitz C, Mittelmeier W et al (2012) Economic impact of infected total knee arthroplasty. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/196515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P (2009) Evolving concepts in biofilm infections. Cell Microbiol 11:1034–1043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M et al (2010) Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 35:322–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson LR (2008) Microcolony and biofilm formation as a survival strategy for bacteria. J Theor Biol 251:24–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Laffer RR, Graber P, Ochsner PE et al (2006) Outcome of prosthetic knee-associated infection: evaluation of 40 consecutive episodes at a single centre. Clin Microbiol Infect 12:433–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mok JM, Guillaume TJ, Talu U et al (2009) Clinical outcome of deep wound infection after instrumented posterior spinal fusion: a matched cohort analysis. Spine 34:578–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montanaro L, Speziale P, Campoccia D et al (2011) Scenery of staphylococcus implant infections in orthopedics. Future Microbiol 6:1329–1349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nickinson RS, Board TN, Gambhir AK et al (2010) The microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:505–510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Poultsides LA, Liaropoulos LL, Malizos KN (2010) The socioeconomic impact of musculoskeletal infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:e13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pull Ter Gunne AF, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL et al (2010) The presentation, incidence, etiology, and treatment of surgical site infections after spinal surgery. Spine 35:1323–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rechtine GR, Bono PL, Cahill D et al (2001) Postoperative wound infection after instrumentation of thoracic and lumbar fractures. J Orthop Trauma 15:566–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stefansdottir A, Johansson D, Knutson K et al (2009) Microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty: report from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register on 426 surgically revised cases. Scand J Infect Dis 41:831–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tande AJ, Patel R (2014) Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 27:302–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zimmerli W (2014) Clinical presentation and treatment of orthopaedic implant-associated infection. J Intern Med 276:111–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zimmerli W, Ochsner PE (2003) Management of infection associated with prosthetic joints. Infection 31:99–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    U. Dapunt, C. Bürkle, W. Pepke & S. Hemmer

  2. Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Krankenhaushygiene, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland

    F. Günther

  3. Clinic für Wirbelsäulenerkrankungen und -Therapien, MEOCLINIC, Berlin, Deutschland

    M. Akbar

Authors
  1. U. Dapunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Bürkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Pepke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Hemmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Akbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Dapunt.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

U. Dapunt, C. Bürkle, F. Günther, W. Pepke, S. Hemmer und M. Akbar geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen oder an menschlichem Gewebe wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethikkommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen beteiligten Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dapunt, U., Bürkle, C., Günther, F. et al. Infektionen nach Hüft- und Kniegelenkersatzoperationen und nach Spondylodesen: ein Vergleich. Orthopäde 49, 710–713 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03944-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03944-2

Search

Navigation