Two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty using a shortened post-operative course of antibiotics

Current Strategies in Developing Antibacterial Surfaces for Joint Arthroplasty Implant Applications

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain a significant challenge, occurring in 1% to 2% of joint arthroplasties and potentially leading to a 20% to 30% mortality rate within 5 years. The primary pathogens responsible for PJIs include Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Gram-negative bacteria, typically treated with intravenous antibiotic drugs. However, this conventional approach fails to effectively eradicate biofilms or the microbial burden in affected tissues. As a result, innovative strategies are being explored to enhance the efficacy of infection prevention through the development of antibacterial-coated implants. These coatings are required to demonstrate broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, minimal local and systemic toxicity, favorable cost-effectiveness, and support for bone healing. In the present review, the analysis of various methodologies for developing antibacterial coatings was performed, emphasizing studies that conducted in vivo tests to advance potential clinical applications. A diversity of techniques employed for the development of coatings incorporating antimicrobial agents highlights promising avenues for reducing infection-related surgical failures.

Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review

Prosthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.

Optimal reimplantation timing in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: an observative cohort study in Asian population

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has not been established and varies from a few weeks to several months. The aim of this study was to assess the commendable time between implant removal and reimplantation in patients who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 361 patients who were treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee chronic PJI at our institution between January 2000 and December 2018. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, surgical variables, microbiology data, and time to reimplantation were recorded. All patients were followed for a minimum of one year. Treatment failure was defined by Delphi criteria. Logistic regression analyses were used to calculate survival rates and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of treatment failure.

RESULTS

In final analysis, 27 (7.5%) had treatment failure. Factors related to treatment failure including interim spacer exchange (OR, 3.13; confidence interval (CI), 1.04-9.09, p = 0.036), higher ESR level at reimplantation (OR, 1.85; CI, 1.05-3.57; p = 0.04), and time to reimplantation (OR, 1.00; CI, 1.003-1.005, p = 0.04). Performing revision arthroplasty surgery from 16 to 20 weeks had highest successful rate. The reimplantation over 24 weeks had a lower successful rate. However, no statistical significance in comparing each interval group.

CONCLUSION

Our study emphasized the importance of timely reimplantation in achieving successful outcomes. Factors such as ESR levels, spacer exchange, and the duration of time to reimplantation influenced the likelihood of treatment failure in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee PJI.

Two-stage revision of infected hip prosthesis after post-operative antibiotic therapy: An observational study

Infection is a major threatening side effect after total hip arthroplasty (THA) that its management is so difficult and is accompanied by different complications. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients underwent 2-staged THA after a course of antibiotic therapy. It was an observational prospective study performed during 2009 and 2019. We managed 51 patients with infected THA using a method in which antibiotic prophylaxis was performed after THA. We followed the same protocol for treatment of patients included 2-staged revision: in first stage, removal of infected instruments were performed and insertion of a hand-made antibiotic-cement spacer was done until erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP were normalized. In second stage, an un-cemented prosthesis was re-implanted in femoral side and post-operative IV antibiotic were administered for a week. Patients were monitored for about 15 months. Data were analyzed. There were 3 patients developed recurrent infection required girdlestone due to the aging. One of them needed to remove implant and 2 other with 3 times of re-infection were treated by antibiotic therapy. Other 10 cases were treated first by re-changing the cement. The rate of successful treatment was 78.4% (40 of 51) after the primary surgery and antibiotic therapy. This rose to 92.1% (47 of 51) following more debridement and antibiotic therapy. The merging of staged surgical debridement, using spacer of cement-antibiotic and re-implant beside 1-week intravenous antibiotic therapy, leaded to appropriate early outcomes in this series.

Antibiotic Therapy for Prosthetic Joint Infections: An Overview

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication after arthroplasty. Its management combines surgical intervention, whose type depends on the clinical situation, and prolonged high-dose antibiotics adapted to the responsible microorganism(s) and the patient. Antibiotics are only one part of the therapeutic regimen and are closely related to the surgical strategy. Their efficacy depends to a large extent on the choice and quality of the surgical procedure, and the quality of the microbiological diagnosis. Although guidelines have been published, many aspects of antibiotic therapy remain poorly established. Choosing the optimal agent(s) is one aspect, with others being optimization of drugs' pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, the choice of administration route, use of monotherapy or combination regimens, therapeutic drug-monitoring and patient education to improve compliance and tolerance. Herein, we address PJI management based on recent literature data, guidelines and the experience of our referral center for complex bone-and-joint infections.

Antibiotic Therapy in 2-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at risk for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To treat PJI, orthopaedic surgeons can perform 1-stage or 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Although 2-stage revision yields superior long-term outcomes, the optimal antibiotic therapy duration and route of administration between stages remain uncertain. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify if variations in antibiotic therapy, duration, and administration during 2-stage hip or knee revision arthroplasty affect PJI eradication rates and surgical outcome measures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify all original reports from January 2000 to June 2021 involving 2-stage revision arthroplasty to treat PJI. Studies were included if they specified antibiotic duration, an intravenous (IV) route of antibiotic administration, type of antibiotic, and 2-stage revision PJI eradication rate and had a mean or median follow-up of at least 2 years after the second-stage operation. Included studies were classified into 3 groups based on the length of IV antibiotic therapy after prosthesis explantation: prolonged IV antibiotic therapy of 4 to 6 weeks, shortened IV antibiotic therapy of ≤2 weeks, and shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy followed by 6 to 12 weeks of oral antibiotics.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Three studies utilizing a prolonged IV antibiotic therapy had PJI eradication rates of 79% to 96%. Four studies using a shortened IV antibiotic therapy showed PJI eradication rates of 88% to 100%. Finally, 2 studies utilizing a shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy with oral antibiotics had PJI eradication rates of 95% and 97%. There was no significant difference in eradication rates across IV antibiotic duration strategies, despite a diverse array of cultured microorganisms across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the numbers are small, this systematic review suggests that prolonged IV antibiotic duration, shortened IV antibiotic duration, and shortened IV antibiotic duration supplemented with oral antibiotics confer similar PJI eradication rates after hip or knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Mid-term follow-up results after implementing a new strategy for the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent one of the most serious complications associated with joint replacement surgeries, a complication also of modern orthopedic surgery despite the efforts that occurred in this field. Frequently PJIs lead to prolonged morbidity, increased costs and mortality.

METHODS

We are conducting a single-center observational cohort ongoing study in the Academic Emergency Hospital Sibiu, Romania, study in which sonication of the retrieved and as a rapid method of bacteria detection, molecular identification of bacteria by 16S rRNA beacon-based fluorescent in situ hybridization (bbFISH) are used.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were enrolled in this study. The diagnosis of aseptic loosening was established in 30 cases (49.1%) and the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection was established at 31 patients (50.8%). The mean follow-up period in the subgroup of patients diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infections was 36.06 ± 12.59 months (range: 1-54). The 25-months Kaplan-Meier survival rate as the end point, as a consequence of the period of enrollment and a different follow-up period for each type of surgical procedure, was 75% after debridement and implant retention, 91.7% after one-stage exchange, 92.3% after two-stage exchange, and 100% after three-stage exchange. There were no significant differences in survival percentage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has good results similar to previously published data. We cannot recommend one strategy of managing prosthetic joint infections over the other. Definitely, there is a need for prospective randomized controlled trials.

Two-Stage Reimplantation of a Prosthetic Hip Infection: Systematic Review of Long-Term Reinfection and Pathogen Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although two-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains an effective option for infection eradication, long-term outcome reporting remains scarce. Compiling outcomes data for this standard of care is necessary to characterize long-term reinfection risk and identify bacteria associated with reinfection. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review to determine the long-term risk of reinfection after two-stage reimplantation. The second purpose was to identify the proportion of reinfections caused by the same or different organism(s) relative to the index infection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of two-stage reimplantation randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case series for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections, yielding 320 unique citations for abstract review, of which 138 were reviewed in full. We collected reinfection data including the timing of reinfection after successful reimplantation and the bacteria identified at reinfection. Meeting inclusion criteria were 28 studies with 2047 patients and 2055 hips that completed both reimplantation stages with just seven studies having greater than 24 month follow-up.

RESULTS

Studies with longer average follow-up reported significantly higher all-time reinfection rates (P = .042). Among studies with at least 5 years of follow-up, the risk of reinfection was 10.25% (8.21-12.47). Among studies with minimum follow-up of at least 24 months, the 24-month rate of reinfection was 4.58% (2.17-7.66), which increased to 7.34% (4.44-10.82) by final follow-up. Only 12 studies reported index and recurrent pathogen data. In those studies, 3.00% (1.19-5.38) of all hips which completed both reimplantation stages were reinfected by a new pathogen, and 1.70% (0.52-3.35) of patients became reinfected by recurrent pathogens.

CONCLUSION

While the majority of two stage reimplantation literature follows patients for two years, there is significant risk of reinfection into the long term. Further studies with detailed outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed to identify factors associated with late infections.

Use of Antibiotic Loaded Biomaterials for the Management of Bone Prosthesis Infections: Rationale and Limits

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection still represents a challenging issue for the orthopedic community. In the United States approximately a million joint arthroplasties are performed each year, with infection rates ranging from 1 to 2%: revisions has significant implications on health care costs and appropriate resource management. The use of locally applied antibiotics as a prophylaxis measure or as a component of the therapeutic approach in primary or revision surgery is finalized at eliminating any microorganism and strengthening the effectiveness of systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The present review of clinical and preclinical in vivo studies tried to identify advantages and limitations of the materials used in the clinical orthopedic practice and discuss developed biomaterials, innovative therapeutic approaches or strategies to release antibiotics in the infected environment.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out by two independent observers in two databases (www.pubmed.com and www.scopus.com) in order to identify pre-clinical and clinical reports in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

71 papers were recognized eligible: 15 articles were clinical studies and 56 in vivo studies.

CONCLUSION

Polymethylmethacrylate was the pioneer biomaterial used to manage infections after total joint replacement. Despite its widespread use, several issues still remain debated: the methods to combine materials and antibiotics, the choice of antibiotics, releasing kinetics and antibiotics efficacy. In the last years, the interest was directed towards the selection of different antibiotics, loaded in association with more than only one class and biomaterials with special focus on delivery systems as implant surface coatings, hydrogels, ceramics, micro-carriers, microspheres or nanoparticles.

What Determines the Type and Dose of Antibiotic That Is Needed to Be Added to the Cement Spacer in Patients With Infected Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA)?

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend tailoring the antibiotic in cement spacers to the infecting organism if it has been identified, as is typically done in total knee and hip arthroplasty. Otherwise, broad-spectrum antibiotics may be utilized. Medical comorbidities should always be considered, especially with regard to renal function and allergy profile. A thermostable antibiotic should be added to cement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Consensus.

DELEGATE VOTE

Agree: 100%, Disagree: 0%, Abstain: 0% (Unanimous, Strongest Consensus).

Management of Prosthetic Joint Infection

Although uncommon, prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication. This challenging condition requires a coordinated management approach to achieve good patient outcomes. This review details the general principles to consider when managing patients with prosthetic joint infection. The different medical/surgical treatment strategies and how to appropriately select a strategy are discussed. The data to support each strategy are presented, along with discussion of antimicrobial strategies in specific situations.

Proposal for shorter antibiotic therapies

OBJECTIVES

Reducing antibiotic consumption has now become a major public health priority. Reducing treatment duration is one of the means to achieve this objective. Guidelines on the therapeutic management of the most frequent infections recommend ranges of treatment duration in the ratio of one to two. The Recommendation Group of the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF) was asked to collect literature data to then recommend the shortest treatment durations possible for various infections.

METHODS

Analysis of the literature focused on guidelines published in French and English, supported by a systematic search on PubMed. Articles dating from one year before the guidelines publication to August 31, 2015 were searched on the website.

RESULTS

The shortest treatment durations based on the relevant clinical data were suggested for upper and lower respiratory tract infections, central venous catheter-related and uncomplicated primary bacteremia, infective endocarditis, bacterial meningitis, intra-abdominal, urinary tract, upper reproductive tract, bone and joint, skin and soft tissue infections, and febrile neutropenia. Details of analyzed articles were shown in tables.

CONCLUSION

This work stresses the need for new well-conducted studies evaluating treatment durations for some common infections. Following the above-mentioned work focusing on existing literature data, the Recommendation Group of the SPILF suggests specific study proposals.

Single-stage revision for periprosthetic hip infection using antibiotic loaded impaction graft

BACKGROUND

Staged revision for periprosthetic infection of the hip is an accepted and widely used technique by many surgeons. However, single-stage exchange of the hip prosthesis remains an attractive option to others because of the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter treatment time and hospital stay in addition to the reduced cost of treatment.

HYPOTHESIS

Single-stage revision for periprosthetic hip infection can achieve excellent results if a specific protocol for patients' selection and management is followed.

METHODS

52 patients with evidence of periprosthetic infection had preoperative aspiration of the affected hip. The infecting organisms were identified in 33/52 and single-stage revision was performed. The remaining 19 patients had a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. Patients in the single-stage revision protocol had antibiotic loaded morsellized bone graft, a cemented cup and a long cementless stem.

RESULTS

At an average follow up of 6 (range 4-8) years postoperatively, only 1 case of persistent infection was found in the single-stage group - a 97% rate of eradicating infection was achieved.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage exchange achieves excellent success rate in patients with periprosthetic infection when a specific protocol for patient selection and management is followed.

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

Background

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections.

Methods

We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment.

Results

After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I² = 45.5 %]).

Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies.

Conclusion

Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.

Orthopaedic device-related infection: current and future interventions for improved prevention and treatment

Orthopaedic and trauma device-related infection (ODRI) remains one of the major complications in modern trauma and orthopaedic surgery.Despite best practice in medical and surgical management, neither prophylaxis nor treatment of ODRI is effective in all cases, leading to infections that negatively impact clinical outcome and significantly increase healthcare expenditure.The following review summarises the microbiological profile of modern ODRI, the impact antibiotic resistance has on treatment outcomes, and some of the principles and weaknesses of the current systemic and local antibiotic delivery strategies.The emerging novel strategies aimed at preventing or treating ODRI will be reviewed. Particular attention will be paid to the potential for clinical impact in the coming decades, when such interventions are likely to be critically important.The review focuses on this problem from an interdisciplinary perspective, including basic science innovations and best practice in infectious disease. Cite this article: Moriarty TF, Kuehl R, Coenye T, et al. Orthopaedic device related infection: current and future interventions for improved prevention and treatment. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:89-99. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000037.

Titanium-Based Hip Stems with Drug Delivery Functionality through Additive Manufacturing

Postoperative infections are a major concern in patients that receive implants. These infections generally occur in areas with poor blood flow and pathogens do not always respond to antibiotic treatment. With the latest developments in nanotechnology, the incorporation of antibiotics into prosthetic implants may soon become a standard procedure. The success will, however, depend on the ability to control the release of antibiotics at concentrations high enough to prevent the development of antibiotic-resistant strains. Through additive manufacturing, antibiotics can be incorporated into cementless femoral stems to produce prosthetic devices with antimicrobial properties. With the emerging increase in resistance to antibiotics, the incorporation of antimicrobial compounds other than antibiotics, preferably drugs with a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity, will have to be explored. This review highlights the microorganisms associated with total hip arthroplasty (THA), discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the latest materials used in hip implants, compares different antimicrobial agents that could be incorporated, and addresses novel ideas for future research.

Two-Stage Revision Protocol in Multidrug Resistant Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Long Interval Between Stages

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 31 patients with periprosthetic hip infections attempting to evaluate the outcome of a two-stage revision protocol characterized by prolonged interim period (mean=9.2 months, range 8-12 months) prior to the final re-implantation. In 3 cases (9.6%) the 1st stage was repeated after a mean period of 12.3 weeks due to relapse of infection. Five spacer dislocations occurred, not affecting the final clinical outcome after reimplantation, as evaluated by the Harris Hip Score. No protrusions or additional acetabular bone loss was noticed. Our proposed protocol is a simple, safe, efficient and reproducible treatment approach that may be successfully utilized predominantly when dealing with multidrug resistant pathogens.

Are Preformed Articulating Spacers Superior To Surgeon-Made Articulating Spacers in the Treatment Of PJI in THA? A Literature Review

Background and Purpose:

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are typically manufactured by surgeons in the operating room. However, if the infecting organism is known preoperatively, the cement spacer can be fabricated (Spacer-G^® or the InterSpace^® Hip) in advance. It is unclear if preformed hip spacers are superior to surgeon-made hip spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following primary THA.

Methods:

A literature review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of preformed and surgeon-made hip spacers in the treatment of infection following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis to compare the reinfection rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and spacer complication rates between surgeon-made and preformed hip spacers.

Results and Interpretation:

The analyzed studies included a total number of 1631 infected THA cases (n=1027 surgeonmade; n=604 preformed spacers). We found similar reinfection rates (6.0% surgeon-made, and 5.5% preformed spacers) and similar mean HHS at latest follow-up after reimplantation (HHS=84.3 surgeon-made, and HHS=81.8 preformed spacers) between both groups. However, patients treated with a surgeon-made articulating spacer had a higher spacer fracture rate compared to preformed articulating spacer. The use of preformed articulating spacers in the treatment of infected THA is not superior to surgeon-made articulating spacers regarding infection control and functional outcomes. However, the use of surgeon-made antibiotic spacers increased the risk of spacer fracture.

Two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: outcome and role of reimplantation microbiology in 107 cases

Two-stage revision is widely used for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. However, the duration of antibiotic treatment between stages and role of reimplantation microbiology are controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome and influence of the reimplantation microbiology of two-staged revisions with 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment. We retrospectively reviewed 107 patients treated with two-stage revision between 2001 and 2009. The overall treatment success rate was 94.4%. The reimplantation cultures were positive in 5/97 (5.2%) cases, and only one of them failed. Therefore, we achieved excellent results with a 6-week course of antibiotics between stages in two-stage revision. Positive reimplantation cultures do not seem to be associated with worse outcomes.

Prosthetic joint infection

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a tremendous burden for individual patients as well as the global health care industry. While a small minority of joint arthroplasties will become infected, appropriate recognition and management are critical to preserve or restore adequate function and prevent excess morbidity. In this review, we describe the reported risk factors for and clinical manifestations of PJI. We discuss the pathogenesis of PJI and the numerous microorganisms that can cause this devastating infection. The recently proposed consensus definitions of PJI and approaches to accurate diagnosis are reviewed in detail. An overview of the treatment and prevention of this challenging condition is provided.

Reduced re-infection rates with postoperative oral antibiotics after two-stage revision hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Surgeons are often trying to decreased reinfection rates following two-stage reimplantation arthroplasty, which range from 3.2% to 13% because multiple staged revision procedures for infection can be costly and have high morbidity. We therefore asked: (1) Did the use of postoperative oral antibiotics reduce reinfection rates after 2-staged revision of THA? And (2) how did this compare with the infection rate after aseptic revision procedures?

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for a periprosthetic deep hip infection and found 66 patients (67 hips) who had a minimum 24 months' followup. Twenty-two of the 66 procedures (33%) were followed by a minimum of 14 days of postoperative oral antibiotics (mean, 36 days; range, 14 days to lifelong), while 44 were prescribed only immediate parenteral postoperative antibiotic therapy (mean, 1.3 days; range, 1-3 days). We then identified 407 patients (410 hips) who underwent aseptic revision hip arthroplasty and evaluated the infection rate in these patients for comparison; these patients were treated with 24 hours of postoperative parenteral antibiotics. The authors used previously described creteria to establish the presence of infection.

RESULTS

There were no reinfections in the group receiving oral postoperative antibiotics compared to six reinfections (13.6%) in the 44 patients not receiving oral antibiotics. We observed infection in 2 of the 410 hips (0.5%) revised for aseptic reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that our findings warrant further investigation for using postoperative oral antibiotics after reimplantation for periprosthetic infection in an effort to decrease the likelihood and risks associated with additional revision arthroplasty procedures.

Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

These guidelines are intended for use by infectious disease specialists, orthopedists, and other healthcare professionals who care for patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI). They include evidence-based and opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with PJI treated with debridement and retention of the prosthesis, resection arthroplasty with or without subsequent staged reimplantation, 1-stage reimplantation, and amputation.

[Hip joint infections - Results of a questionnaire among 28 university orthopedic departments]

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous prophylactic measures infections still remain a hazardous complication in orthopedic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire about hip joint infections was sent to all university orthopedic departments in Germany and Austria. The questionnaire included 33 questions with respect to demographic data, causative organisms, diagnostic measures, treatment options for early and late infections, antibiotic therapy and prosthesis reimplantation.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 70%. The most frequent primary surgical indication was primary total hip replacement and Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis were the most common pathogens identified. All departments performed a joint aspiration for diagnosis confirmation but for other diagnostic measures a great discrepancy could be observed. In the treatment of early infections removable components were always exchanged, whereas a local antibiotic therapy was not always employed. With regard to late infections a two-stage protocol was more frequently used than a one-stage treatment, whereby the implantation of a cement spacer was more commonly performed than a resection arthroplasty. The time between stages varied between 6 and 12 weeks and systemic antibiotics were administered for a mean time of 6 weeks. For prosthesis reimplantion cementless components were mostly used but no clear tendency could be determined for systemic antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of hip joint infections among German and Austrian university orthopedic departments is only partly carried out in a similar manner.

Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis

While total hip arthroplasty has progressed to become one of the most successful surgical procedures ever developed, infection remains a serious complication. We have conducted a review of the literature pertaining to management of deep infection in total hip arthroplasty, specifically focusing on clinically relevant articles published in the last five years. A search was conducted using MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as a review of the Cochrane database, using the terms "total hip arthroplasty", "total hip replacement" and "infection". References for all selected articles were cross-checked. While the so-called two-stage revision is generally considered to be the gold standard for management, numerous studies now report outcomes for implant retention and reassessing one-stage revision strategies. There are encouraging reports for complex reconstruction options in patients with associated severe bone stock loss. The duration of antibiotic therapy remains controversial. There is concern about increasing bacterial resistance especially with the widespread use of vancomycin and ertapenem (carbapenem).

Six-year follow-up of a preformed spacer for the management of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are currently used in two-stage revision of septic total hip arthroplasty as temporary devices. Prolonged spacer implantation in infected shoulder has been described occasionally in poor candidates for reconstruction surgery (medically compromised and/or low-physical demand patients, deficient bone stock). Few papers previously reported the use of spacers in infected hip prosthesis as a permanent solution, but limited information is available on the medium-term behaviour. We detail medium-term clinical and radiographic follow-up of a preformed spacer in the management of a chronically infected hip arthroplasty in a 50-year-old female patient who did not undergo a second-stage surgery. Normalization of inflammatory markers was detected 3 weeks after surgery and persisted over time. Six years after surgery, the patient recovered a good range of motion and was able to walk pain free with assisted weightbearing. Remarkable radiological changes of the bone stock around the spacer stem have been assessed. New bone formation developed rapidly in the femur, leading to the consolidation of transfemoral osteotomy 6 months postoperatively. Two years after implantation, spontaneous and asymptomatic fatigue fracture in the mid-part of the stem occurred. Radiographs at 6 years showed a sufficient preservation of bone stock, though a slowly progressive resorption of the cortical femur around the stem was evident in the last year. In conclusion, prolonged spacer implantation seems to be not appropriate in septic hip arthroplasty as a permanent solution. In patients not undergoing a second-stage surgery, a careful and periodic monitoring is required to rule out possible and severe complications.

Encouraging outcomes of staged, uncemented arthroplasty with short-term antibiotic therapy for treatment of recalcitrant septic arthritis of the native hip

BACKGROUND

Septic arthritis in native hip joints is a rare but serious condition in adult patients. Prompt aggressive surgical and medical treatment is a challenge, and the outcomes after delayed management can be devastating. This article reports the findings of treatment of recalcitrant cases using a standardized protocol.

METHODS

Fourteen consecutive patients (15 hips) were treated with two-stage total hip arthroplasty (THA) for septic arthritis of the hip joint over a 6-year period. All patients underwent resection arthroplasty and implantation of an antibiotic-loaded articulating spacer in the first stage, short-term systemic antibiotic therapy during the interim period, and subsequent THA without bone cement in the second stage.

RESULTS

One patient required additional debridement and spacer reinsertion before THA. The mean interim period was 12.9 weeks (range, 6-31 weeks). After an average follow-up period of 42.5 months (range, 25-72 months) after THA, there was no evidence of recurrent infection or loosening of the prostheses in any patient. The average Merle D'Aubigne and Postel hip score improved from 9.3 (range, 5-15) to 13.5 (range, 12-16) between stages and to 16.7 (range, 15-18) at the latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage uncemented THA is a reliable treatment option for adult patients with recalcitrant septic hips. If an antibiotic-loaded interim spacer is used, routine, prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be necessary.

Prognostic value of suction drain tip culture in determining joint infection in primary and non-infected revision total hip arthroplasty: a prospective comparative study and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Closed suction drainage in joint replacement surgery has been considered to carry an obvious risk of bacteria invasion. Previous studies have shown controversial results regarding the role of suction drain culture in predicting artificial joint infection. Furthermore, the efficacy of the method has not been established in revision total hip or knee arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Suction drain tips from 110 patients who underwent 73 primary and 37 revision non-infected total hip arthroplasties were prospectively cultured. The drains removed at 48 h postoperatively. The patients had an average age of 64.3 years (range 25-81 years) and followed up for 2-4 years (average 2.8 years).

RESULTS

Positive cultures were identified in two primary (2.74%) and six revision (16.22%) total hip replacements (p = 0.017). The most frequently isolated microorganisms were Staphylococcus aureus (3 cases) and S. epidermidis (2 cases). Resistance to perioperative antibiotics was found in three out of eight isolated pathogens. However, no infection was recorded in any of the eight patients whose cultures found positive.

CONCLUSION

Although suction drains are more often contaminated in revision total hip arthroplasty, the prognostic value of the method in determining joint infection is very limited and its routine use is not supported from the clinical data.

Revision of late periprosthetic infections of total hip endoprostheses: pros and cons of different concepts

Many concepts have been devised for the treatment of late periprosthetic infections of total hip prostheses. A two-stage revision with a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and a cemented prosthesis appears to be the most preferred procedure although, in recent times, there seems to be a trend towards cementless implants and a shorter period of antibiotic treatment. Because of the differences in procedure, not only between studies but also within studies, it cannot be decided which period of parenteral antibiotic treatment and which spacer period is the most suitable. The fact that comparable rates of success can be achieved with different treatment regimens emphasises the importance of surgical removal of all foreign materials and the radical debridement of all infected and ischaemic tissues and the contribution of these crucial procedures to the successful treatment of late periprosthetic infections.

Two-stage procedure in the treatment of late chronic hip infections--spacer implantation

Infection after total hip arthroplasties (THA) is a devastating complication with significant consequences for both the patients and the healthcare systems. In recent times, a two stage procedure using antibiotic-impregnated interim spacers has become the most popular treatment for late chronic hip joint infections after THA with success rates over 90%. In this review, we discuss the different types of spacers used in the treatment of chronically infected THA and conclude that hip spacers are effective in the treatment of hip joint infections.