Search

Type IV allergies to nickel sulfate, potassium dichromate and/or cobalt chloride are supposed to be associated with aseptic loosening, pain or infections in patients with hip arthroplasty. However, there is debate on any causal relation between type IV sensitization to metals and any of these complications. We report on a patient with suspicion of pre-existing type IV sensitization to nickel sulfate and potassium dichromate who did not show any complications after hip arthroplasty.

This prospective observational study had two aims: (I) to assess whether a preoperative dental screening before endoprosthesis (EP) implantation with need-based dental intervention would decrease the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and (II) to evaluate whether instructed orthopedic surgeons would achieve similar results in oral screening as dentists. The preoperative oral health statuses of the patients, prior to EP insertion, were either evaluated by the patients' general dentists (Ia) or, if the patient had not visited a general dentist, by an instructed orthopedic surgeon (Ib). Both the dentist and orthopedic surgeon used standardized risk estimation (low risk, moderate risk, and high risk) for an oral-health-related infectious complication after EP insertion, including a recommendation for further management of the patient. If required, a need-based dental rehabilitation was performed. In addition, retrospective data evaluation of a comparison group (II) was performed, which had not been screened orally preoperatively. A total of 777 patients (screening group (I): n = 402, of which 229 were screened by a dentist (Ia), 173 were screened by an orthopedic surgeon (Ib); comparison group (II): n = 375) were included. No general association between early infection rate and preoperative oral screening in general was found (1% PJI in screening group (I), 1.6% PJI in comparison group (II); p = 0.455). However, screening performance (dentist vs. orthopedic surgeon) had a significant impact on the prevalence of developed PJIs (p = 0.021). Thereby, 100% of observed infections in the screening group (I) occurred in the group with previous oral screening by an orthopedic surgeon (Ib). Furthermore, the C-reactive protein (CRP) value at discharge was significantly lower when general preoperative oral screening had been performed (group I vs. group II, p = 0.03). Only preoperative oral screening by a dentist had the potential to reduce oral-focus-associated EP infections; therefore, increased attention should be paid to the further promotion of interdisciplinary work between dentists and orthopedic surgeons. Dental screenings, using objectifiable criteria, as applied in this study, seem reasonable but require further validation in larger cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional cohort study was to evaluate a comprehensive dental examination and referral concept for patients prior to endoprosthesis (EP) implantation in an interdisciplinary setting. Methods: Patients, who were prepared for EP surgery in the clinic for orthopaedics, were referred to the dental clinic for a dental examination. Thereby, dental and periodontal treatment need, radiographic and temporomandibular joint findings were assessed. Based on oral and radiographic investigation, a risk classification for potential source of prosthetic infection was performed. If potential oral foci of EP infection were present (e.g., apically radiolucent teeth, severe periodontitis or additional inflammatory findings), patients were classified as at high risk for EP infection with oral origin. Those individuals were allocated to their family dentist or special clinic for dental treatment prior to EP surgery. Results: A total of 311 patients were included (mean age: 67.84 ± 10.96 years, 51% male). A dental treatment need of 33% was found, while the periodontal treatment need was 83%. Thirty-one percent of patients showed at least one apical radiolucency (a sign of chronic infection/inflammation). Furthermore, additional findings such as radiographic signs of sinusitis maxillaris were found in 24% of patients. Temporomandibular disease was probable in 17% of individuals. One-third (34%) were assigned to the high risk group for an EP infection with oral origin. Conclusion: German patients before EP have a high periodontal treatment need and show frequently (34%) a potential oral focus of infection, underlining the necessity of including dental examination and risk stratification as part of the pre-operative assessment prior to EP implantation. Therefore, an approach as applied in this study appears reasonable for those individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the application of Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self-Measure (PRISM) in educating patients regarding oral health before endoprosthesis (EP). Methods: The study consisted of two parts: (I) a cross-sectional study, where patients received a PRISM interview, oral health briefing and oral examinations (treatment need, oral focus). (II) In an observational part, patients were randomly assigned to either PRISM task (Test) or flyer-based verbal briefing (Control). Before and after the interviews, patients answered a questionnaire regarding importance of oral health for EP. Results: (I) 122 patients were included. The distance between subject ("myself") and objects (oral health issues or EP) in the PRISM task were mainly not associated with age, gender, and oral conditions. In part (II), 80 patients (PRISM: n = 40, Control: n = 40) were included. After the interview, the values for perceived relationship between EP and teeth (p < 0.01), EP and gums (p < 0.01), and EP and dental consultations (p < 0.01) significantly increased in both groups. Both groups perceived a high benefit of the interview and felt well educated. Conclusions: PRISM has comparable positive effects like a flyer-based verbal briefing. PRISM as a novel visual tool can support the patient education regarding oral health before EP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]