{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025039123630672927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01643192488262911, 'mean_word_length': 5.033018867924528, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[One-stage revision of shoulder arthroplasty in the case of periprosthetic infection].

AIM
Infection of shoulder arthroplasties is rare, but represents a potentially devastating complication. The aim of this work is to show the value of various diagnostic procedures, specify causative pathogens and present the results of one-stage revised patients.


METHOD
We performed a retrospective analysis of our 16 consecutive patients with an infected shoulder arthroplasty.


RESULTS
In 13 of 16 cases a causative pathogen could be established preoperatively. Staphylococcus and Propioni spp. dominated. Only 9 patients could be followed up because two died, two were lost and three patients were revised because of non-infectious complications. The follow-up time was 5.8 years (13 months-13.25 years). The Constant-Murley score was 33.6 of 100. Eradication of infection was achieved in all patients. In the follow-up time no reinfection has occurred.


CONCLUSION
Culturing of the preoperative joint fluid aspirate and the determination of CRP provide an early diagnosing of shoulder arthroplasty infection. One-stage revision arthroplasty with radical debridement and application of antibiotics to the bone cement provide an accurate therapy of periprosthetic shoulder infection.