ライフサイエンスコーパス: joint infection

1 d specific diagnosis of S. aureus prosthetic joint infection.

2 icant predictors of postoperative prosthetic joint infection.

3 ision arthroplasty and a previous prosthetic joint infection.

4 is an independent risk factor for prosthetic joint infection.

5 s had aseptic failure, and 79 had prosthetic-joint infection.

6 ve the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection.

7 management of staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infection.

8 ined in 108 staphylococci causing prosthetic joint infection.

9 photopenia in the setting of acute bone and joint infection.

10 ay be insufficient to prevent periprosthetic joint infection.

11 detect pathogens associated with prosthetic joint infection.

12 ith a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

13 outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection.

14 aphylococcus lugdunensis from periprosthetic joint infection.

15 rimary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

16 to a reduced risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

17 factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

18 d with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

19 igh accuracy in evaluation of periprosthetic joint infection.

20 associated with sepsis from musculoskeletal joint infection.

21 ignificant impact on incidence of prosthetic joint infection.

22 atures, and treatment options for prosthetic joint infection.

23 e positivity for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.

24 n aseptic prosthesis loosening and low-grade joint infection.

25 rimination of aseptic loosening vs low-grade joint infection.

26 rimination of aseptic loosening vs low-grade joint infection.

27 the formation of bacterial aggregates during joint infection.

28 more virulent in a nonhuman primate model of joint infection.

29 specificity for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.

30 blished case of Coxiella burnetii prosthetic joint infection.

31 t Listeria monocytogenes-associated bone and joint infections.

32 management of staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections.

33 sly reported cases of Actinomyces prosthetic joint infections.

34 ritis and an increasing number of prosthetic joint infections.

35 nt fever was associated with native bone and joint infections.

36 detecting common pathogens causing bone and joint infections.

37 cs are not recommended to prevent prosthetic joint infections.

38 or prevention of endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections.

39 es and promising candidates for treatment of joint infections.

40 he prevention of endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections.

41 severity of urinary tract and periprosthetic joint infections.

42 ward a potential novel approach for treating joint infections.

43 cs are not recommended to prevent prosthetic joint infections.

44 mia and/or endocarditis (73.5%), bone and/or joint infections (32.4%), and epidural abscess (22.1%).

45 or the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection among patients undergoing hip or knee re

46 lococcal isolates associated with prosthetic joint infection and 23 coagulase-negative staphylococci

47 the surrogate marker for periprosthetic hip joint infection and differentiation from other synovitis

48 dimentation rate in the diagnosis of bone or joint infection and in monitoring a patient's clinical r

49 ight into the pathogenesis of staphylococcal joint infection and the mechanisms underlying resistance

50 valuate potential risk factors of prosthetic joint infection and to clarify if RA is an independent p

51 detection system, for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection and to compare it with combined (111)In-

52 bacterial pathogen associated with bone and joint infections and a major pathogen in pediatric popul

53 rgical debridement is typically required for joint infections and chronic osteomyelitis, whereas acut

54 s, skin and soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections and hospital-acquired infections.

55 nt with routine culture for the detection of joint infections and may improve timely diagnosis when u

56 e therapy for 10 recalcitrant periprosthetic joint infections and review the treatment protocols util

57 luding native valve endocarditis, prosthetic joint infection, and intravascular catheter-related infe

58 n aseptic prosthesis loosening and low-grade joint infection, and which biomarker combinations are mo

59 Periprosthetic joint infections are a devastating complication after ar

60 Periprosthetic joint infections are a devastating complication of joint

61 Prosthetic joint infections are difficult to diagnose and treat due

62 ate-onset chronic (low-grade) periprosthetic joint infections are often accompanied by unspecific sym

63 hat are associated with wound and prosthetic joint infections as well bacteremia and empyema.

64 two-step model of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection: As we previously reported, interaction

65 3) of arthroplasty-associated non-prosthetic joint infection-associated coagulase-negative staphyloco

66 ither arthroplasty-associated non-prosthetic joint infection-associated isolates (e.g., Staphylococcu

67 ed adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers.

68 1 S. aureus isolates from patients with bone/joint infections, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis

69 mplications for the management of prosthetic joint infections, because treatment strategies depend on

70 ntly revised for an indication of prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014, after a median fo

71 ocedures subsequently revised for prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014.

72 Solutions for bone and joint infection (BJI) are needed where conventional trea

73 initial 6 weeks in the treatment in bone and joint infection (BJI), is noninferior to intravenous the

74 lenging in patients with a recurrent bone or joint infection (BJI).

75 increasingly used in patients with bone and joint infection (BJI).

76 have been harnessed for refractory bone and joint infections (BJI) in many case reports.

77 trated non-inferiority for managing bone and joint infections (BJI) with oral antibiotics.

78 during acute initial and recurrent bone and joint infections (BJI), showed that recurrent strains pr

79 Bone and joint infections (BJIs) are difficult to treat and affec

80 strated noninferiority for managing bone and joint infections (BJIs) with oral antibiotics.

81 or the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection, but this method is neither sensitive no

82 approach, we show that individual as well as joint infection by RSV and PIV can be specifically preve

83 We report the first case of a prosthetic joint infection caused by Gemella sanguinis.

84 inical practice can revolutionize prosthetic joint infection diagnosis by offering a comprehensive an

85 ical utility of CSI-Dx for aiding prosthetic joint infection diagnosis.

86 mazF::tn periprosthetic joint infections displayed increased biofilm burden at a

87 We describe a case of prosthetic joint infection due to a previously undescribed organism

88 the first reported case of a prosthetic hip joint infection due to Campylobacter coli.

89 he first case of a patient with a prosthetic joint infection due to Oerskovia xanthineolytica.

90 microbials for >=10 days (eg, osteomyelitis, joint infection, endocarditis) and used the monthly prop

91 When targeting both viruses in a joint infection, excess of one siRNA moderated the inhib

92 e diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection, focusing on frequent clinical challenge

93 ral risk factors for revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement.

94 with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following primary knee replacement.

95 tant Staphylococcus aureus, a major cause of joint infections, forms exceptionally strong biofilmlike

96 al manifestations, but fewer than 20 bone or joint infections from 6 countries have been reported in

97 ver the last several decades, periprosthetic joint infection has been increasing in incidence and is

98 s identified an increased risk of prosthetic joint infections (HR 4.08, 95% CI 1.35-12.33) in patient

99 nd improved management of pediatric bone and joint infections.IMPORTANCEKingella kingae (KKIN) has lo

100 omponent in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in arthroplasty surgery.

101 tion of the most common pathogenic causes of joint infection in children.

102 However, the RecA mutant was attenuated for joint infection in competitive-infection assays with the

103 i DNA in SF is not a reliable test of active joint infection in Lyme disease.

104 97 included two large, multi-year surveys of joint infection in patients from defined European health

105 ly and actionable diagnostic information for joint infections in a variety of clinical scenarios.

106 the performance of the JI panel in detecting joint infections in our patient population.

107 sequencing (16S PCR/S) for the diagnosis of joint infections in pediatric patients.

108 been recognized as a major cause of bone and joint infections in pre-school aged children.

109 d with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, ope

110 Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of knee re

111 The risk of developing a prosthetic joint infection is affected by patient, surgical, and he

112 diabetic pedal osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infection is not established.

113 Prosthetic joint infection is one of the most dreaded complications

114 The pathogenesis of joint infections is not well understood.

115 All Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infection isolates (n = 55) were icaA positive.

116 coagulase-negative staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection isolates were icaA positive, and 30% (7

117 diabetic pedal osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infection, it is not useful for spondylodiskitis.

118 udy evaluates the performance of the BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel compared to joint fluid cultu

119 The bioMerieux BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a multiplex in vitro diagn

120 inical performance of the bioMerieux BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel to standard-of-care (SOC) dia

121 f the Investigational Use Only (IUO) BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel was compared to 16S rRNA gene

122 dance is heavily based on the periprosthetic joint infection literature and low-level studies on spin

123 (IDP) to reduce the risk of late prosthetic joint infection (LPJI).

124 Bone and joint infection, mainly caused by Staphylococcus aureus,

125 Conversely, false diagnosis of joint infection may result in multistage revision proced

126 In prosthetic-joint infection, microorganisms are typically present in

127 and does not differentiate early prosthetic joint infection, most likely related to the intervention

128 calized epidural, paraspinal, and peripheral joint infections occurred.

129 pared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by pati

130 sed to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two st

131 95% CI] 1.02-8.75) and a previous prosthetic joint infection of the replaced joint (HR 5.49, 95% CI 1

132 Periprosthetic joint infections often involve biofilms, making treatmen

133 io [OR], 1.99 [95% CI, 1.16-3.40]), bone and joint infections (OR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.08-2.68]), and int

134 for 96 hours (P < .001), and native bone and joint infection (P = .020) were associated with persiste

135 The BioFire Joint Infection Panel (JI panel) is a newly FDA-approved

136 The BIOFIRE Joint Infection Panel is a rapid, multiplex PCR assay th

137 te infections in general, and periprosthetic joint infections particularly, has prompted implementati

138 amples were classified as showing prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic failure (AF), respecti

139 f these, 152 and 279 subjects had prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic failure, respectively.

140 imary outcome of interest was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on the International Consens

141 bial etiology of culture-negative prosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be challenging.

142 Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be managed with debridement, a

143 Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by Candida spp is a severe

144 eported case of Ureaplasma parvum prosthetic joint infection (PJI) detected by PCR.

145 onstrated improved sensitivity of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis using an automated blood

146 onstrated improved sensitivity of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis using an automated blood

147 sensitive than tissue culture for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis.

148 R has been previously studied for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis; however, few studies ha

149 ver the last several decades, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been increasing in incidence a

150 tion culture for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has improved sensitivity compared

151 ver, its role in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has not been well defined.

152 ophylaxis reduces the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision hip and knee a

153 The primary outcome was prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first postoperative year.

154 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication of

155 Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a complication of arthroplasty

156 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of total j

157 Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a potentially limb-threatening

158 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare but devastating complica

159 Post-arthroplasty periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious ailment that can be d

160 Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of total

161 The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is challenging, often requiring mu

162 2-stage exchange surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is high.

163 use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient.

164 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreading compli

165 Accurate and rapid diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is vital for rational and effectiv

166 ant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on the presence of

167 ant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on the presence of

168 g the prognosis of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) managed with debridement, antibiot

169 nclear how often asymptomatic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs, and whether additional dia

170 al performance for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of hip/knee replacements.

171 The optimal treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains uncertain.

172 Treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) usually requires surgical replacem

173 ized infection within 30 days and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 1 year after surgery betwee

174 species are occasional causes of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), but few data are available on the

175 des for bone infection, including prosthetic joint infection (PJI), often in combination with rifampi

176 ading cause of biofilm-associated prosthetic joint infection (PJI), resulting in considerable disabil

177 e in the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), whereby a higher failure rate of

178 cognized as an important agent of prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

179 ly being recognized as a cause of prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

180 initial antibiotic treatment for prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

181 e fluid, providing a diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

182 ading cause of biofilm-associated prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

183 re not an infrequent cause of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

184 ionals who care for patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

185 Peri-prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a serious adverse event follo

186 Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are economically and personally c

187 e diagnosed two cases of periprosthetic knee joint infections (PJI) caused by Francisella tularensis

188 The management of peri-prosthetic joint infections (PJI) provides an excellent example of

189 ially relevant for craniotomy and prosthetic joint infections (PJI), both of which are characterized

190 a foundation of data derived from prosthetic joint infections (PJI), but differences in PJI and FRI m

191 ecies are common pathogens in periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

192 monocytogenes is a rare cause of prosthetic joint infections (PJI).

193 tment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

194 ssociatedto acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

195 for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections (PJI).

196 f sonication fluid culture on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) focused on diagnostic accuracy,

197 discontinuation when used for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is currently unknown.

198 ureus is a leading cause of human prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) typified by biofilm formation.

199 TKA) and clinical implications of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs), knowledge gaps remain concernin

200 of care for surgical revision in prosthetic joint infections (PJIs).

201 Joint infections remain an uncommon complication of immu

202 additional cases of Campylobacter prosthetic joint infection reported in the literature are reviewed.

203 or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or dea

204 cs (AO) Foundation and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS).

205 Periprosthetic joint infection status was defined by a PJI Internationa

206 omes of total joint replacements, prosthetic joint infections still remain a significant cause of imp

207 anisms involved in bone loss during bone and joint infection, suggesting that osteoclasts could be a

208 with microbiologically confirmed prosthetic joint infection that had been managed with an appropriat

209 with microbiologically confirmed prosthetic joint infections that were managed with standard surgica

210 nmicrobiologic criteria to define prosthetic-joint infection, the sensitivities of periprosthetic-tis

211 ation for the reported extreme resistance of joint infection to antibiotic treatment, lend support to

212 anism(s) is crucial for effective prosthetic joint infection treatment.

213 l Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infe

214 l Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infe

215 The management of prosthetic joint infection usually consists of a combination of sur

216 on of potential risk factors with prosthetic joint infection was examined using Cox models.

217 Bone or joint infection was most common with 348 cases (32.4%),

218 eus HysA on biofilm-like aggregates found in joint infections was examined.

219 uid cultures for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection were 54% and 75%, whereas the specificit

220 Fourteen cases of prosthetic-joint infection were detected by sonicate-fluid culture

221 ascular, central nervous system, or bone and joint infection were risk factors for misdiagnosed site

222 Prosthetic joint infections were excluded.

223 lacement are at increased risk of prosthetic joint infection, which is further increased in the setti

224 ccus aureus is a leading cause of prosthetic joint infections, which, as we recently showed, proceed

225 Of 328 patients without peripheral-joint infection who were included in this investigation,

226 ia retains a nearly unique susceptibility to joint infection with mycoplasmas, which can cause consid

227 ld be considered in patients with prosthetic joint infection without an identified pathogen.