摘要
目的 对比抗生素骨水泥与非抗生素骨水泥旷置术在膝关节置换术后感染患者二期翻修应用中的疗效.方法 分析我院关节置换术后感染二期翻修患者37例,其中抗生素骨水泥组26例,非抗生素骨水泥组11例.从术后患者的红细胞沉降率（ESR）、C反应蛋白（CRP）、美国特种外科医院膝关节评分（HSS）和住院时间4个指标对两组治疗效果进行比较.结果 抗生素骨水泥组的ESR、CRP在术后3、6、12 d变化情况、HSS评分、住院时间分别是（138.18 ±23.24）、（69.12±21.65）、（21.32±12.67） mm/h;（89.46±21.51）、（24.37 ±11.52）、（7.23±6.11） mg/L;（94.71±3.26）分;（15.05±4.51）d,明显低于非抗生素骨水泥组的（197.19 ±31.91）、（111.52 ±32.43）、（42.78 ±21.95） mm/h;（134.11 ±36.23）、（74.13 ±21.64）、（21.12±12.69） mg/L;（83.26 ±4.51）分和（24.12±5.51）d,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 使用抗生素骨水泥旷置术能够有效控制关节置换术后的炎症指标,改善患者症状,提升功能,缩短住院时间.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of antibiotic bone cement and non-antibiotic bone cement in arthroplasty infection patients with two stage revision.Methods Thirty-seven patients with infection were collected from May,2008 to March,2014 in our hospital after joint replacement.Among them,26 cases were given antibiotic bone cement and 11 cases given non-antibiotic bone cement in the first stage of two stage revision.Their clinical data including erythrocyte sedimentation rate （ESR）,C-reactive protein （CRP）,hospital for special surgery knee score （HSS） and time of hospital （TOH） were analyzed and compared.Results The changes of ESR and CRP on the postoperative day 3,6 and 12,HSS score,hospital stay in antibiotic bone cement group were （138.18 ± 23.24）,（69.12 ±21.65）,（21.32±12.67） mm/h;（89.46±21.51）,（24.37 ± 11.52）,（7.23 ±6.11）mg/L;（94.71 ±3.26）;and （15.05 ±4.51） days respectively.Those in non-antibiotic cement group were （197.19 ±31.91）,（111.52±32.43）,（42.78±21.95）mm/h;（134.11±36.23）,（74.13 ±21.64）,（21.12 ±12.69） mg/L;（83.26 ±4.51）;and （24.12 ±5.51） days respectively.There were significant differences between two groups （P 〈 0.05）.Conclusion The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement exclusion can effectively control the indexes of infection,alleviate symptoms of patients,improve the function,and shorten the hospital stay.
出处
《中华实验外科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2015年第5期1201-1203,共3页
Chinese Journal of Experimental Surgery
