142 -2 (88) 2026 - Safarov M.N. - DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF ASEPTIC AND INFECTIOUS SHAKING OF THE LUMBAR ENDOPROTESIS

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF ASEPTIC AND INFECTIOUS SHAKING OF THE LUMBAR ENDOPROTESIS

Safarov M.N. - Bukhara Regional Multidisciplinary Medical Center

Resume

Differential diagnosis of aseptic and infectious loosening of hip endoprostheses remains one of the most complex and clinically significant tasks of modern orthopedics. Incorrect interpretation of the nature of implant instability can lead to the choice of inadequate treatment tactics and worsen the results of revision endoprosthetics. Goal. Analyze modern approaches to the differential diagnosis of aseptic and infectious loosening of hip endoprostheses and determine their diagnostic value. Materials and methods. A review of domestic and foreign publications on clinical, laboratory, instrumental, and microbiological diagnostic methods used to differentiate between aseptic instability and periprotic infection has been conducted. Results. It has been shown that no diagnostic method possesses absolute sensitivity and specificity. A comprehensive approach based on a combination of clinical assessment, laboratory markers of inflammation, visualization methods, and synovial fluid analysis has the greatest diagnostic value. Diagnosing a latent infection of low activity, clinically imitating aseptic weakening, is of particular importance. Conclusion. Differential diagnosis of aseptic and infectious shock requires a multi-level examination algorithm. Comprehensive use of modern diagnostic criteria allows for increased diagnostic accuracy and optimization of revision endoprosthetics tactics.

Keywords: endoprosthetics of the hip joint, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic infection, differential diagnosis, revision endoprosthetics.

First page

756

Last page

763

For citation:Safarov M.N. - DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF ASEPTIC AND INFECTIOUS SHAKING OF THE LUMBAR ENDOPROTESIS//New Day in Medicine 2(88)2026 756-763 https://newdayworldmedicine.com/en/new_day_medicine/2-88-2026

List of References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–1519.
  2. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1768–1777.
  3. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128–133.
  4. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide; 2022.
  5. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 19th Annual Report. London; 2022.
  6. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–785.
  7. Harris WH. The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;311:46–53.
  8. Willert HG, Bertram H, Buchhorn GH. Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(4):495–504.
  9. Goodman SB, Gallo J. Periprosthetic osteolysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2091.
  10. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1645–1654.\

    file

    download