Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.

Results

The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA.

Conclusion

The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the 'real world'. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection.

Diagnosis and Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections After Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is a dreaded complication that may lead to catastrophic outcomes. Risk factors include a history of surgery on the operated ankle, low preoperative function scores, diabetes, extended surgical time, and postoperative wound-healing problems. Clinical presentation varies and may include increasing ankle pain and swelling, high temperature, local erythema, wound drainage, and dehiscence. The initial diagnostic evaluation should include plain radiographs, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein levels, and leukocyte count. In suspected cases with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, aspiration of the ankle joint for synovial fluid analysis, Gram staining, and culture should be performed. Antibiotic therapy should be based on the pathogen identified, and the surgical strategy should be determined based on the time lines of PJI. Early PJI can be treated with irrigation and débridement with polyethylene exchange. The surgical treatment of choice for late PJI is two-stage revision arthroplasty, which includes removal of the implant, insertion of an antibiotic spacer, and reimplantation of a TAA. In certain chronic PJI cases, permanent articulating antibiotic spacers can be left in place or an ankle arthrodesis can be performed. Below-knee amputation is considered as the final option after limb-sparing procedures have failed.

Biofilm and How It Relates to Prosthetic Joint Infection

Prosthetic joint infection following total joint arthroplasty is a devastating complication, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality for the patient. The formation of a biofilm on implanted hardware contributes to the difficulty in successful identification and eradication of the infection. Antibiotic therapy and surgical intervention are necessary for addressing this condition; we present a discussion on different treatment options, including those that are not yet routinely utilized in the clinical setting or are under investigation, to highlight the present and future of PJI management.

Diagnosing and Managing Infection in Total Ankle Replacement

Infections after total ankle replacement (TAR) within the first 4 weeks after implantation can be managed successfully with 1 or several debridements, irrigation, and a change of polyethylene inlay. Late infections require implant removal. Low-grade infections might be an underestimated problem so far. Although single-surgery revisions are reported in the literature, the authors' experience with 2-stage revisions using an antibiotics-loaded bone cement spacer is better. Additional antibiotics are used to support the surgical treatment. After antibiotic therapy of 12 weeks, the final treatment includes ankle or tibio-talo-calcaneal fusion and, with limitations, revision TAR.

Host and microbial characteristics associated with recurrent prosthetic joint infections

Approximately 20% of patients after resection arthroplasty and antibiotic spacer placement for prosthetic joint infection develop repeat infections, requiring an additional antibiotic spacer before definitive reimplantation. The host and bacterial characteristics associated with the development of recurrent infection is poorly understood. A case-control study was conducted for 106 patients with intention to treat by two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection at a single institution between 2009 and 2020. Infection was defined according to the 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Thirty-nine cases ("recurrent-periprosthetic joint infection [PJI]") received at least two antibiotic spacers before clinical resolution of their infection, and 67 controls ("single-PJI") received a single antibiotic cement spacer before infection-free prosthesis reimplantation. Patient demographics, McPherson host grade, and culture results including antibiotic susceptibilities were compared. Fifty-two (78%) single-PJI and 32 (82%) recurrent-PJI patients had positive intraoperative cultures at the time of their initial spacer procedure. The odds of polymicrobial infections were 11-fold higher among recurrent-PJI patients, and the odds of significant systemic compromise (McPherson host-grade C) were more than double. Recurrent-PJI patients were significantly more likely to harbor Staphylococcus aureus. We found no differences between cases and controls in pathogen resistance to the six most tested antibiotics. Among recurrent-PJI patients, erythromycin-resistant infections were more prevalent at the final than initial spacer, despite no erythromycin exposure. Our findings suggest that McPherson host grade, polymicrobial infection, and S. aureus infection are key indicators of secondary or persistent joint infection following resection arthroplasty and antibiotic spacer placement, while bacterial resistance does not predict infection-related arthroplasty failure.

Intramedullary Positive Tissue Culture Increases the Risk of Reinfection Following One-Stage Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative acquisition of representative tissue samples is essential during revision arthroplasty of the infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While the number of intraoperative tissue samples needed to identify the organism is well described in the literature, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding the location of positive intraoperative samples and their correlation to postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

There were forty-two patients who had septic failure following one-stage revision TKA for periprosthetic joint infection who were identified between January 2009 and December 2017. They were matched to a control group of patients who had successful one-stage revision TKA without septic failure. The location of positive intraoperative tissue samples was categorized as: 1) soft tissue; 2) interface between bone and prosthesis; and 3) intramedullary (IM). Chi-square, Student's t-, and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U-tests were used as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of septic failure.

RESULTS

Weight > 100 kilograms (P = .033), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < .001), and positive IM cultures (P < .001) were associated with a higher risk of reinfection after one-stage revision TKA. A positive IM sample carried a nearly five-fold increase in odds of reinfection (odds ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.85 to 12.78, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A positive IM culture sample is significantly associated with septic failure after one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. Patients who had positive IM cultures may benefit from longer postoperative antibiotic therapy for the treatment of one-stage exchange arthroplasty to minimize the risk of reinfection.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.

Key aspects of soft tissue management in fracture-related infection: recommendations from an international expert group

A judicious, well-planned bone and soft tissue debridement remains one of the cornerstones of state-of-the-art treatment of fracture-related infection (FRI). Meticulous surgical excision of all non-viable tissue can, however, lead to the creation of large soft tissue defects. The management of these defects is complex and numerous factors need to be considered when selecting the most appropriate approach. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence with respect to soft tissue management in patients diagnosed with FRI. Specifically we discuss the optimal timing for tissue closure following debridement in cases of FRI, the need for negative microbiological culture results from the surgical site as a prerequisite for definitive wound closure, the optimal type of flap in case of large soft tissue defects caused by FRI and the role of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in FRI. Finally, recommendations are made with regard to soft tissue management in FRI that should be useful for clinicians in daily clinical practice.Level of evidence Level V.

Alleged Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery in The Netherlands: Lessons Learned from Medical Disciplinary Jurisprudence

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic surgery is a specialty at risk for medical malpractice claims. We aimed to assess the frequency of alleged malpractice cases related to orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands from the last 15 years.

METHODS

We systematically searched the database of the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court for verdicts related to orthopedic surgery between January 2009 and July 2023 and extracted case data and data on allegations and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 158 verdicts (mean of 10.5 per year), of which 151 (96%) were filed against specialists and 7 (4%) against residents. Cases were most frequently classified as incorrect treatment/diagnosis (n = 107, 67.7%). Cases were related to the subspecialties of knee (n = 34, 21.5%), hip (n = 31, 19.6%), ankle (n = 25, 15.8%), spine (n = 22, 13.9%), and shoulder (n = 19, 12.0%). A total of 32 cases (20.3%) were judged as partially founded and 9 (6%) as founded. The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court imposed 28 warnings, 10 reprimands, and 3 temporary suspensions. A total of 68 appeals were submitted, of which 95% were rejected for filing patients. In three instances, unfounded verdicts were changed to two warnings and a reprimand. In four appeals by an orthopedic surgeon, a warning and reprimand were dismissed, and two reprimands were changed to warnings.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of malpractice cases against orthopedic surgeons in the Netherlands is relatively low. The cases in our study may improve our understanding of allegations against physicians and improve the quality of patient care.

The Change of Serum Interleukin-6 Fails to Identify Subsequent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Who Have Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of persistent infection prior to second-stage reimplantation in 2-stage exchanges for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be challenging as there is no optimal diagnostic tool. This study investigates the usefulness of pre-reimplantation serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) and its change between both stages to identify patients who have subsequent PJI.

METHODS

There were 125 patients who underwent planned 2-stage exchange for chronic knee or hip PJI from a single center retrospectively identified. Patients were included if preoperative CRP and IL-6 were available for both stages. Subsequent PJI was defined as 2 positive microbiological cultures at reimplantation or subsequent surgery or death due to PJI during follow-up.

RESULTS

Prior to reimplantation, the median serum CRP (total knee arthroplasties [TKAs]: 1.0 versus 0.5 mg/dL, P = .028; total hip arthroplasties [THAs]: 1.3 versus 0.5 mg/dL, P = .015) and median IL-6 (TKA: 8.0 versus 6.0 pg/mL, P = .052; THA: 7.0 versus 6.0 pg/mL, P = .239) were higher in patients who had subsequent PJI. The IL-6 and CRP values showed moderate sensitivity (TKA/CRP: 66.7%; THA/CRP: 58.8%; TKA/IL-6: 46.7%; THA/IL-6: 35.3%) and good specificity (TKA/CRP: 66.7%; THA/CRP: 81.0%; TKA/IL-6: 86.3%; THA/IL-6: 83.3%). The change in CRP and IL-6 between the stages did not differ between the groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum CRP and IL-6 show low to moderate sensitivity and good specificity in the diagnosis of subsequent PJI prior to reimplantation, which questions their usefulness as a rule-out test. Furthermore, the change in between stages does not appear to identify subsequent PJI.

Silver-Coated Distal Femur Megaprosthesis in Chronic Infections with Severe Bone Loss: A Multicentre Case Series

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and fracture-related infections (FRI) of the distal femur (DF) may result in massive bone defects. Treatment options include articulated silver-coated (SC) megaprosthesis (MP) in the context of a two-stage protocol. However, there is limited evidence in the literature on this topic. A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained databases of three Institutions was performed. Forty-five patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 43 ± 17.1 months. Eight (17.8%) patients had a recurrent infection. The estimated recurrence-free survival rate was 91.1% (93.5% PJI vs. 85.7% FRI) 2 years following MP implantation, and 75.7% (83.2% PJI vs. 64.3% FRI; p = 0.253) after 5 years. No statistically relevant difference was found according to the initial diagnosis (PJI vs. FRI). Among possible risk factors, only resection length was found to significantly worsen the outcomes in terms of infection control (p = 0.031). A total of eight complications not related to infection were found after reimplantation, but only five of them required further surgery. Above-the-knee amputation was performed in two cases (4.4%), both for reinfection. Articulated DF SC MP in a two-stage protocol is a safe and effective treatment for chronic knee infection with severe bone loss.

Extended trochanteric osteotomy is a safe procedure in two-stage hip revision: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) has proved to be an effective technique in complicated stem removal in femoral aseptic loosening or periprosthetic fracture. Debate remains about its safety in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The primary aim of this study is to analyze the ETO reinfection and union rate in two-stage hip revision.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed regarding all studies reporting ETO outcomes in the two-stage revision for hip PJI up to October 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. A literature search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE/EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Quality assessment of the articles was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected.

RESULTS

This systematic review included and analyzed nine clinical studies with a total of 382 ETO PJI hips in two-stage revision. The overall ETO reinfection rate was 8.9% (34 hips), consistent with the reinfection rate after two-stage revision in patients without ETO. The overall ETO union rate was 94.8% (347 hips), comparable to the ETO union rate in non-septic patients. Compared between a group of patients with ETO PJI and a group of patients with non-PJI ETO, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications, both septic and aseptic, and for postoperative HHS.

CONCLUSION

ETO proved to be a safe and effective procedure in PJI revisions. It may be a viable option in challenging femoral stem removal during the two-stage hip revision in PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee represents a severe complication after 1.5% to 2% of primary total knee replacement. Although two-stage revision was considered the gold-standard treatment for PJI of the knee, in the last decades, more studies reported the outcomes of one-stage revisions. This systematic review aims to assess reinfection rate, infection-free survival after reoperation for recurrent infection, and the microorganisms involved in both primary and recurrent infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting the outcome of one-stage revision for PJI of the knee up to September 2022, according to PRISMA criteria and AMSTAR2 guidelines, was performed. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were recorded.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42022362767.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 881 one-stage revisions for PJI of the knee were analyzed. A reinfection rate of 12.2% after an average follow-up of 57.6 months was reported. The most frequent causative microorganism were gram-positive bacteria (71.1%), gram-negative bacteria (7.1%), and polymicrobial infections (8%). The average postoperative knee society score was 81.5, and the average postoperative knee function score was 74.2. The infection-free survival after treatment for recurrent infection was 92.1%. The causative microorganisms at reinfections differed significantly from the primary infection (gram-positive 44.4%, gram-negative 11.1%).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent a one-stage revision for PJI of the knee showed a reinfection rate lower or comparable to other surgical treatments as two-stage or DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention). Reoperation for reinfection demonstrates a lower success compared to one-stage revision. Moreover, microbiology differs between primary infection and recurrent infection. Level of evidence Level IV.

Two-stage revision in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using a new intraoperatively molded articulating spacer design

Purpose

The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still under debate. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the most common surgical procedure performed. This study analyzed a new functional articulating hip spacer called "Spaceflex" regarding the mechanical-related complications, the recurrent/persistent infection during the interval period, the overall infection-free survivorship after reimplantation, the overall complication/reoperation after reimplantation and the evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at three intervals of time: before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation.

Methods

A consecutive series of 56 patients with chronic hip PJI undergoing two-stage prosthetic revision using a new intraoperatively molded articulating hip spacer design implanted by the same experienced surgeons was examined from January 2017 to December 2021. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the included patients were analyzed. Specifically, PROMs before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation and complications reported during the interval period and after reimplantation were examined.

Results

The new functional articulating hip spacer was characterized by a low mechanical complication rate (5.8%) and an overall two-stage procedure success rate of 90.6% at the last follow-up. PROMs improved with the spacer during the interval period and at the final follow-up. Furthermore, the reinfection rate was in line with other case series with different spacer designs. Finally, low postoperative complication rates after reimplantation have been demonstrated.

Conclusions

Two-stage revision performed with a modular articulating spacer allows patients to preserve satisfactory functional and quality-of-life outcomes in the postoperative period, with a low risk of mechanical complications and without increasing the reinfection rate.

Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention: A Systematic Review of Strategies for Treatment of Early Infections after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

GOAL

The purpose of this review is to provide a systematic and comprehensive overview of the available literature on the treatment of an early prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and provide treatment guidelines.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The search was conducted using the electronic databases of PubMed, Trip, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS and SciElo. After the inclusion of the relevant articles, we extracted the data and results to compose a treatment algorithm for early and acute PJI after revision TKA.

RESULTS

After applying the in- and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in this systematic review focusing on debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for PJI following revision TKA, of which one was prospective and six were retrospective. All studies were qualified as level IV evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature suggests that DAIR is a valid treatment option for early infections after revision TKA with success rates of 50-70%. Repeat DAIR shows success rates of around 50%. Further research should be aimed at predicting successful (repeat/two-stage) DAIRs in larger study populations, antibiotic regimes and the cost effectiveness of a second DAIR after revision TKA.

The Potential Role of Gut Bacteriome Dysbiosis as a Leading Cause of Periprosthetic Infection: A Comprehensive Literature Review

(1) Background: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a small yet important risk when undertaking a joint arthroplasty; they occur in approximately 1-2% of treatments. These infections create a medical and financial burden for patients and healthcare systems. Despite the introduction of recognized best clinical practices during arthroplasty operations, it is not yet possible to further reduce the risk of infection after surgery. The purpose of this review is to raise awareness of the potential role of gut dysbiosis in the development of PJIs and to highlight the potential of the gut bacteriome as a possible target for preventing them. (2) Methods: We compiled all the available data from five databases, examining the effects of gut dysbiosis in human and murine studies, following PRISMA guidelines, for a total of five reviewed studies. (3) Results: One human and one murine study found the Trojan horse theory applicable. Additionally, inflammatory bowel diseases, gut permeability, and oral antibiotic ingestion all appeared to play a role in promoting gut dysbiosis to cause PJIs, according to the other three studies. (4) Conclusions: Gut dysbiosis is linked to an increased risk of PJI.

Diagnostic value of open incisional biopsies in suspected, difficult-to-diagnose periprosthetic hip joint infection prior to revision surgery

INTRODUCTION

Prior to revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA), low-grade chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is often difficult to diagnose. We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of open incisional tissue biopsy for the prediction of PJI prior to THA revision in cases with culture-negative or dry tap joint aspirates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study includes 32 consecutive THA revision cases with high clinical suspicion of low-grade chronic PJI of the hip with culture-negative or dry tap joint aspirates and without systemic signs of infection. Open incisional biopsy (OIB) was performed prior to revision surgery. Periprosthetic tissue samples were analyzed by microbiology and histopathology for PJI. During definitive revision arthroplasty, identical diagnostics were repeated. Results from both procedures were compared and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of OIB for the final diagnosis were calculated.

RESULTS

Average age at revision was 69.3 ± 13.5 years. The sensitivity of the OIB procedure was 80% (microbiology), 69% (histology) and 82% for combined analyses (microbiology and histology). Specificity of OIB was 80% (microbiology), 94% (histology) and 60% for combined analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Open tissue biopsy performed in cases with culture-negative or inconclusive synovial fluid aspirates prior to revision of THA has limited diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of PJI. The procedure does not reliably close the diagnostic gap in a substantial number of cases. In this difficult patient population, risk of an open procedure may outweigh benefits and alternative less invasive methods should be considered for the preoperative diagnosis of PJI.

Sex-specific analysis of clinical features and outcomes in staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections managed with two-stage exchange arthroplasty

Background: Differences in susceptibility and response to infection between males and females are well established. Despite this, sex-specific analyses are under-reported in the medical literature, and there is a paucity of literature looking at differences between male and female patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Whether there are sex-specific differences in presentation, treatment tolerability, and outcomes in PJI has not been widely evaluated. Methods: We undertook a retrospective case-matched analysis of patients with staphylococcal PJI managed with two-stage exchange arthroplasty. To control for differences other than sex which may influence outcome or presentation, males and females were matched for age group, causative organism category (coagulase-negative staphylococci vs. Staphylococcus aureus), and joint involved (hip vs. knee). Results: We identified 156 patients in 78 pairs of males and females who were successfully matched. There were no significant baseline differences by sex, except for greater use of chronic immunosuppression among females (16.4 % vs. 4.1 %; p = 0.012 ). We did not detect any statistically significant differences in outcomes between the two groups. Among the 156 matched patients, 16 recurrent infections occurred during a median follow-up time of 2.9 (IQR 1.5-5.3) years. The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 16.1 % for females, compared with 8.8 % for males ( p = 0.434 ). Conclusions: Success rates for PJI treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty are high, consistent with previously reported literature. This retrospective case-matched study did not detect a significant difference in outcome between males and females with staphylococcal PJI who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision).

INTERVENTIONS

A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection remains a significant challenge for arthroplasty surgeons globally. Over the last few decades, there has been much advancement in terms of treatment and diagnosis, however, the fight rages on. As management of periprosthetic joint infections continues to evolve, it is critical to reflect back on current debridement practices to establish common ground as well as identify areas for future research and improvement. BODY: In order to understand the debridement techniques of periprosthetic joint infections, one must also understand how to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection. Multiple definitions have been elucidated over the years with no single consensus established but rather sets of criteria. Once a diagnosis has been established the decision of debridement method becomes whether to proceed with single vs two-stage revision based on the probability of infection as well as individual patient factors. After much study, two-stage revision has emerged as the gold standard in the management of periprosthetic infections but single-stage remains prominent with further and further research.

CONCLUSION

Despite decades of data, there is no single treatment algorithm for periprosthetic joint infections and subsequent debridement technique. Our review touches on the goals of debridement while providing a perspective as to diagnosis and the particulars of how intraoperative factors such as intraarticular irrigation can play pivotal roles in infection eradication. By providing a perspective on current debridement practices, we hope to encourage future study and debate on how to address periprosthetic joint infections best.

Effective single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion after multiple failed surgery for periprosthetic joint infection : a mean seven years' follow-up

AIMS

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis included 78 PJI patients (29 hips; 49 knees) who had undergone multiple prior surgical interventions. Our cohort was treated with single-stage revision using a supplementary intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Of these 78 patients, 59 had undergone more than two prior failed debridement and implant retentions, 12 patients had a failed arthroplasty resection, three hips had previously undergone failed two-stage revision, and four had a failed one-stage revision before their single-stage revision. Previous failure was defined as infection recurrence requiring surgical intervention. Besides intravenous pathogen-sensitive agents, an intra-articular infusion of vancomycin, imipenem, or voriconazole was performed postoperatively. The antibiotic solution was soaked into the joint for 24 hours for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), then extracted before next injection. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (87.1%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 85 months (24 to 133). The seven-year infection-free survival was 87.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79.4 to 95.8). No significant difference in infection-free survival was observed between hip and knee PJIs (91.5% (95% CI 79.9 to 100) vs 84.7% (95% CI 73.1 to 96.3); p = 0.648). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score was 76.1 points (63.2 to 92.4) and Hospital for Special Surgery score was 78. 2 (63.2 to 92.4) at the most recent assessment. Polymicrobial and fungal infections accounted for 14.1% (11/78) and 9.0% (7/78) of all cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revision with intra-articular antibiotic infusion can provide high antibiotic concentration in synovial fluid, thereby overcoming reduced vascular supply and biofilm formation. This supplementary route of administration may be a viable option in treating PJI after multiple failed prior surgeries for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):867-874.

Current treatments for biofilm-associated periprosthetic joint infection and new potential strategies

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty. Bacteria involved in these infections are notorious for adhering to foreign implanted surfaces and generating a biofilm matrix. These biofilms protect the bacteria from antibiotic treatment and the immune system making eradication difficult. Current treatment strategies including debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, and one- and two-stage revisions still present a relatively high overall failure rate. One of the main shortcomings that has been associated with this high failure rate is the lack of a robust approach to treating bacterial biofilm. Therefore, in this review, we will highlight new strategies that have the potential to combat PJI by targeting biofilm integrity, therefore giving antibiotics and the immune system access to the internal network of the biofilm structure. This combination antibiofilm/antibiotic therapy may be a new strategy for PJI treatment while promoting implant retention.