ライフサイエンスコーパス: periprosthetic

1 dless of location or intensity; criterion 2: periprosthetic activity on the (18)F-FDG image, without

2 e interpreted as positive for infection when periprosthetic activity was present on the labeled leuko

3 using 4 different criteria: criterion 1: any periprosthetic activity, regardless of location or inten

4 er implantation (p = 0.02), and post-implant periprosthetic aortic regurgitation grade >/=2 of 4 (p <

5 nce of stroke was 4.1%, and the incidence of periprosthetic aortic regurgitation was 64.5%.

6 ity to allow spatial resolution of localized periprosthetic BMD change at the hip was assessed in an

7 Evaluation of BMD change in a model of periprosthetic bone loss demonstrated large but highly f

8 on, chronic inflammation, and destruction of periprosthetic bone, and is one of the leading reasons f

9 volved in osteoclastogenesis and pathologic (periprosthetic) bone resorption.

10 dance of CD4+Th1 subtype was observed in the periprosthetic breast tissue and blood of people in the

11 We report that periprosthetic breast tissue of participants with sympto

12 eloped since 2010: percutaneous injection of periprosthetic cement under fluoroscopic or CT control (

13 A periprosthetic FDG uptake was present in 47 (87%) and 30

14 Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip

15 The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures has increased in recent

16 r fractures around an implant (postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures; POPFF) and is treated

17 terised volume geometry of a UCS IV.3-C type periprosthetic femur fracture were simulated to generate

18 mation and failure of fixation in UCS IV.3-C periprosthetic femur fractures.

19 y better quality of life and a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than uncemented hemiarthroplasty

20 Periprosthetic fractures occurred in 0.5% and 2.1% of th

21 ctious synovitis as the surrogate marker for periprosthetic hip joint infection and differentiation f

22 Periprosthetic infection is one of the most devastating

23 We observed only one case (1.4%) of periprosthetic infection requiring implant removal under

24 These patients are vulnerable to risks from periprosthetic infections and instrument failures.

25 Zoonotic infections should be considered in periprosthetic infections in particular in culture-negat

26 the treatment of biofilm related orthopaedic periprosthetic infections; however the effects of antibi

27 subset in patients with OA and patients with periprosthetic inflammation and display a quiescent phen

28 Primary outcome of interest was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on the Intern

29 Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be managed with

30 Over the last several decades, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been increasing

31 However, its role in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has not been well d

32 e whether EA prophylaxis reduces the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision

33 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic c

34 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complica

35 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare but devas

36 Post-arthroplasty periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious ailmen

37 The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is challenging, oft

38 Failure after a 2-stage exchange surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is high.

39 r prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient.

40 Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most

41 otics, and implant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on

42 iotics and implant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on

43 owever, it is unclear how often asymptomatic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs, and whether

44 mine the clinical performance for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of hip/knee replace

45 rgical procedure in the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), whereby a higher f

46 Streptococci are not an infrequent cause of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

47 Over the last several decades, periprosthetic joint infection has been increasing in in

48 an important component in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in arthroplasty surgery.

49 As current guidance is heavily based on the periprosthetic joint infection literature and low-level

50 Periprosthetic joint infection status was defined by a P

51 pproaches to the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection, focusing on frequent cli

52 ermidis, and Staphylococcus lugdunensis from periprosthetic joint infection.

53 gies to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

54 duction had a high accuracy in evaluation of periprosthetic joint infection.

55 are needed for management of staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infection.

56 ue during TKA may be insufficient to prevent periprosthetic joint infection.

57 utibacterium species are common pathogens in periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

58 sed in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

59 he gut may be associatedto acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

60 ting the role of sonication fluid culture on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) focused on diagno

61 unplanned drug discontinuation when used for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is currently unkn

62 th bacteriophage therapy for 10 recalcitrant periprosthetic joint infections and review the treatment

63 Periprosthetic joint infections are a devastating compli

64 Periprosthetic joint infections are a devastating compli

65 Late-onset chronic (low-grade) periprosthetic joint infections are often accompanied by

66 mazF::tn periprosthetic joint infections displayed increased biof

67 Periprosthetic joint infections often involve biofilms,

68 of surgical site infections in general, and periprosthetic joint infections particularly, has prompt

69 ication of the severity of urinary tract and periprosthetic joint infections.

70 in the clinical management of staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections.

71 ained from patients with OA or patients with periprosthetic joint inflammation.

72 oNETs boost in-vivo healing of MRSA-infected periprosthetic joints, preserving osteogenic and regener

73 resenting in 2016, we diagnosed two cases of periprosthetic knee joint infections (PJI) caused by Fra

74 The incidence of periprosthetic leak >2+/4 after TAVI was higher in group

75 l were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1).

76 on (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2).

77 , logistic euroSCORE, and moderate-to-severe periprosthetic leakage after TAVI.

78 nt of hypoattenuating leaflet thickening and periprosthetic leakage for prosthetic valves.

79 V may be a therapeutic option for preventing periprosthetic loosening.

80 Prosthesis loosening was diagnosed by a periprosthetic lucent zone greater than 2 mm.

81 Periprosthetic masses were detected by MDCT in 46 patien

82 monoenergetic imaging is capable of reducing periprosthetic metal artifacts compared with standard CT

83 s to cobalt have been found in patients with periprosthetic osteolysis after second generation metal-

84 mising new alternative for the prevention of periprosthetic osteolysis and aseptic loosening.

85 and thus treat OC-related diseases, such as periprosthetic osteolysis and osteoporosis.

86 imaging scans for detecting and quantifying periprosthetic osteolysis have been validated in cadaver

87 similar advances in the medical treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis have not occurred.

88 To identify a soluble mediator of periprosthetic osteolysis we first showed that implant p

89 f two or more secondary findings, including -periprosthetic osteolysis, angulation of the implant, fr

90 significant advances in our understanding of periprosthetic osteolysis, imaging technology to quantif

91 particular importance to disorders, such as periprosthetic osteolysis, in which granulomatous inflam

92 e implanted materials, causing inflammation, periprosthetic osteolysis, osteomyelitis, and bone damag

93 th osteoarthritis (OA) and particle-mediated periprosthetic osteolysis.

94 This review will update the state of periprosthetic osteolysis.

95 inhibits 3 processes critically involved in periprosthetic osteolysis: 1) wear debris-induced proinf

96 fety were demonstrated in an animal model of periprosthetic osteomyelitis, where a single dose of 10

97 Clinically significant periprosthetic paravalvular leak is an uncommon but seri

98 ure of a consecutive series of patients with periprosthetic paravalvular leaks referred to our struct

99 gnosis of loosening prosthesis was made for -periprosthetic radiolucency greater than or equal to 2 m

100 to determine the outcome of trivial or mild periprosthetic regurgitation (PPR) identified by intraop

101 apical TAVI approach, and a higher amount of periprosthetic regurgitation were significantly associat

102 as found for the detection of vegetations or periprosthetic regurgitation.

103 solates from deep specimens from a potential periprosthetic shoulder infection cannot be assumed.

104 is the most common bacterium associated with periprosthetic shoulder infections.

105 ia from explant cultures of synovial tissue, periprosthetic soft tissue (interface membranes), titani

106 a prolonged 28-day culture incubation to all periprosthetic specimens received for bacterial culture

107 aerobic and anaerobic culture media for all periprosthetic specimens.

108 The sensitivity and specificity of periprosthetic tissue and ACS sonication culture in dete

109 Periprosthetic tissue and sonicate fluid culture had spe

110 The sensitivities of periprosthetic tissue and sonicate fluid cultures for th

111 time of reimplantation and who had negative periprosthetic tissue and sonicate fluid cultures subseq

112 14 days before surgery, the sensitivities of periprosthetic tissue and sonicate-fluid culture were 45

113 osis was established with PCR and culture of periprosthetic tissue and synovial fluid (and serology).

114 Periprosthetic tissue and/or synovial fluid PCR has been

115 inite prosthetic shoulder infection cases by periprosthetic tissue culture (38.9%) and sonicate fluid

116 an automated blood culture bottle system for periprosthetic tissue culture [T.

117 We report our experience with periprosthetic tissue culture and sonication culture of

118 nicate fluid culture was more sensitive than periprosthetic tissue culture for the detection of defin

119 the results to those with sonicate fluid and periprosthetic tissue culture obtained at revision or re

120 For conventional periprosthetic tissue culture techniques, the greatest a

121 We compared periprosthetic tissue culture to implant sonication foll

122 as improved sensitivity compared to standard periprosthetic tissue culture.

123 an automated blood culture bottle system for periprosthetic tissue culture.

124 Two or more positive periprosthetic tissue cultures with the same organism we

125 sonication culture, along with conventional periprosthetic tissue cultures.

126 tion during staged revisions, as detected by periprosthetic tissue cultures; both have low sensitivit

127 the prosthesis with conventional culture of periprosthetic tissue for the microbiologic diagnosis of

128 Notably, macrophages in the periprosthetic tissue from BII patients were more likely

129 In conclusion, culture of periprosthetic tissue in blood culture bottles is not on

130 Culturing of samples of periprosthetic tissue is the standard method used for th

131 Culture of multiple periprosthetic tissue samples is the current gold standa

132 rgoing revision arthroplasty from whom 1,437 periprosthetic tissue samples were collected and process

133 noculated into blood culture bottles or four periprosthetic tissue specimens are obtained and culture

134 racy of PJI diagnosis is obtained when three periprosthetic tissue specimens are obtained and inocula

135 Culture of periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles

136 research by examining the optimal number of periprosthetic tissue specimens required for accurate PJ

137 corrosion products recovered from patients' periprosthetic tissue.

138 thetic-joint infection, the sensitivities of periprosthetic-tissue and sonicate-fluid cultures were 6

139 stheses was more sensitive than conventional periprosthetic-tissue culture for the microbiologic diag

140 ry staff time viewpoint were used to compare periprosthetic tissues culture processes using conventio

141 Herein, we examined the impact of culture of periprosthetic tissues in blood culture bottles on labor

142 to 100%), whereas when using inoculation of periprosthetic tissues into blood culture bottles, the g

143 We studied periprosthetic tissues of two retrieved THAs with (1) a

144 The amount and type of wear debris in periprosthetic tissues were similar in patients with and