Management of infected extremity endoprostheses: a systematic review

Efficacy of the preformulated irrigation solution Bactisure® in acute periprosthetic joint infection debridement surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite significant progress in orthopaedic surgery, the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remains persistent, and future increases are expected due to the increasing number of joint arthroplasties. PJIs are intricately connected to biofilm-producing bacteria, which encase infected prostheses, impairing the effectiveness of antibiotics and the immune system. Acute PJIs with immature biofilms are traditionally managed with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). However, to date, there has not been a conclusive direct clinical comparison (in vivo) demonstrating the superiority of one irrigation solution over others. Recently, there has been a growing interest in irrigation solutions with antibiofilm properties demonstrated in in vitro studies, exemplified by the preformulated Bactisure® irrigation solution, which contains ethanol, acetic acid, sodium acetate, benzalkonium chloride, and sterile water. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness (infection cure rate) of preformulated Bactisure® irrigation solution in vivo compared with saline solution in a control group of patients with acute knee and/or hip periprosthetic infections treated with DAIR.

METHODS

Prospective single-centre randomized controlled trial involving patients with acute haematogenous PJI who received standard DAIR surgery from December 2022 to December 2024. The type of irrigation solution used during surgery will include two groups allocated at a 1:1 ratio: a control group (n = 25) with saline solution and an experimental group (n = 25) receiving the Bactisure® preformulated solution. The sample size was calculated based on an expected reduction in reinfection rates from 45% in the control group to 10% in the experimental group. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical and radiological information, and healthcare questionnaires will be recorded. All patients will be followed for minimum of 12 months. The infection cure rate at 1 year will be the primary outcome.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to compare the effectiveness of preformulated Bactisure® irrigation solution with that of saline solution in real clinical practice (in vivo) in patients with acute knee and/or hip periprosthetic infections treated with DAIR. Our main hypothesis is that, compared with saline solution, Bactisure® provides a better infection cure rate at 1 year post-DAIR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10873696 . Registered on December 19, 2023.

Amputation and limb-sparing surgery in childhood sarcoma: Post-operative imaging appearances and complications

Limb-sparing surgery and amputation are common surgical techniques used to achieve local tumour control in childhood primary bone and soft tissue malignancy of the limbs. The interpretation of post-operative limb imaging in these frequently complex cases is assisted by knowledge of the surgical techniques employed. This review discusses the rationale underpinning the most common surgical techniques used for these patients as well as their expected post-operative imaging appearance and complications. Amputation, long bone resection, endoprosthetic reconstruction, allograft reconstruction, the use of fibular autografts, allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction and arthrodesis are discussed.

Staged revision of the infected knee arthroplasty and endoprosthesis

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 94 patients undergoing first-stage revision of an infected knee prosthesis between September 2007 and January 2020 at a single institution. Radiographs and clinical records were used to assess and classify the incidence and causes of static spacer failure. Of the 94 cases, there were 19 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), ten revision TKAs (varus-valgus constraint), 20 hinged TKAs, one arthrodesis (nail), one failed spacer (performed elsewhere), 21 distal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasties, and 22 proximal tibial arthroplasties.

Results

A total of 35/94 patients (37.2%) had spacer-related complications, of which 26/35 complications (74.3%) were because of mechanical failure of the spacer construct, while 9/35 (25.7%) were due to recurrence of infection. Risk factors for internal failure were a construct where the total intramedullary spacer length was less than twice the length of the central osseous defect (p = 0.009), where proximal or distal intraosseous spacer contact was < 10%, and after tibial tubercle osteotomy (p = 0.005). The incidence of spacer complications significantly increased the time to second stage: mean 157 days (42 to 458) in those without complications versus 227 days (11 to 528) with complications (p = 0.014).

Conclusion

The failure rate of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is much higher than anticipated. Complications of the spacer significantly increased the time to second-stage revision. The risk of mechanical failure is significantly increased if the spacer is less than double the size of the segmental defect, or if inadequate reinforcement is inserted into the residual bone. These findings serve as a guide for surgeons to avoid mechanical complications with static spacers.

Controversies in orthopaedic oncology

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Debridement, Antibiotic Pearls, and Retention of the Implant (DAPRI) in the Treatment of Early Periprosthetic Knee Joint Infections: A Literature Review

(1) Background: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are severe and frightening complications in orthopaedic surgery, and they are generally divided into three categories: early infections (those occurring within the first 4-6 weeks), delayed infections (those occurring between 3 and 24 months), and late infections (those occurring more than 2 years after surgery). PJI treatment comprises "debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention" (DAIR), single-stage revision, and double-stage revision. Nowadays, to improve the chances of retaining an infected implant and to improve the traditional DAIR method, a modified surgical technique has been developed, named DAPRI (debridement, antibiotic pearls, and retention of the implant). Our study aims to present an up-to-date concept evaluation of the DAPRI technique and its success rate. (2) Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards were followed, applying a protocol defined by the authors: a total of 765 articles were identified, and at the end of the screening process only 7 studies were included. (3) Results: Currently, the DAPRI procedure can be performed only on patients who have had PJI symptoms for less than 4 weeks, and in order to achieve the highest success rate, indications are quite strict: it is appropriate in patients with acute, superficial infections without sinus tract presence, and well-fixed implants with known sensitive bacteria. The DAPRI surgical method follows a step-by-step process consisting of a first phase of biofilm identification with intra-articular injection of methylene blue, followed by biofilm removal (thermic, mechanical, and chemical aggression), and a last step consisting of prevention of PJI recurrence by using calcium sulphate antibiotic-added beads. (4) Conclusions: The DAPRI approach improves the traditional DAIR technique. It is a correct treatment for acute and early haematogenous PJI, and improves the DAIR success rate.

Surgical Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Hip and Knee Megaprostheses

Periprosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after the megaprosthetic reconstruction of oncologic and non-oncologic bone defects of including the knee or hip joint. Due to the relative rarity of these procedures, however, optimal management is debatable. Considering the expanding use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty and the high revision burden in orthopedic oncology, the risk of PJI is likely to increase over the coming years. In this non-systematic review article, we present and discuss current management options and the associated results focusing on studies from the last 15 years and studies from dedicated centers or study groups. The indication, surgical details and results in controlling infection are presented for debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) procedure with an exchange of the modular components, single-stage implant exchange, two-stage exchanges and ablative procedures.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for the early prosthetic joint infection of total knee and hip arthroplasties: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents one of the most fearsome complications of joint replacement. No international consensus has been reached regarding the best approach for early prosthetic knee and hip infections. The aim of this updated systematic review is to assess whether debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective choice of treatment in early postoperative and acute hematogenous PJI.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The diagnostic criteria defining a PJI, the most present pathogen, and the days between the index procedure and the onset of the PJI were extracted from the selected articles. Additionally, the mean follow-up, antibiotic regimen, and success rate of the treatment were also reported.

RESULTS

The articles included provided a cohort of 970 patients. Ten studies specified the joint of their cohort in PJIs regarding either hip prostheses or knee prostheses, resulting in 454 total knees and 460 total hips. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 92 years old. Success rates for the DAIR treatments in the following cohort ranged from 55.5% up to a maximum of 90% (mean value of 71%).

CONCLUSION

Even though the DAIR procedure is quite limited, it is still considered an effective option for patients developing an early post-operative or acute hematogenous PJI. However, there is a lack of studies, in particular randomized control trials (RCTs), comparing DAIR with one-stage and two-stage revision protocols in the setting of early PJIs, reflecting the necessity to conduct further high-quality studies to face the burden of early PJI.

Risk Factors and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infections in Megaprostheses-A Review of the Literature

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common mode of failure of megaprostheses, yet the literature on the topic is scarce, and studies report conflicting data regarding the optimal treatment strategy. Patients with megaprostheses PJI are often immunosuppressed, and surgeons must balance the trade-off between treatment efficacy and morbidity associated with the surgery aiming for infection eradication. Our review on megaprostheses PJI focuses on two axes: (1) risk factors and preventative strategies; and (2) surgical strategies to manage this condition. Risk factors were classified as either unmodifiable or modifiable. Attempts to decrease the risk of PJI should target the latter group. Strategies to prevent PJI include the use of silver-coated implants, timely discontinuation of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and adequate soft tissue coverage to diminish the amount of dead space. Regarding surgical treatment, main strategies include debridement, antibiotics, implant retention (DAIR), DAIR with modular component exchange, stem retention (DAIR plus), one-stage, and two-stage revision. Two-stage revision is the "gold standard" for PJI in conventional implants; however, its success hinges on adequate soft tissue coverage and willingness of patients to tolerate a spacer for a minimum of 6 weeks. DAIR plus and one-stage revisions may be appropriate for a select group of patients who cannot endure the morbidity of two surgeries. Moreover, whenever DAIR is considered, exchange of the modular components should be performed (DAIR plus). Due to the low volume of megaprostheses implanted, studies assessing PJI should be conducted in a multi-institutional fashion. This would allow for more meaningful comparison of groups, with sufficient statistical power. Level of evidence: IV.

Iodine-supported implants in prevention and treatment of surgical site infections for compromised hosts: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication following orthopedic implantation. We developed an iodine coating for titanium implants to reduce implant-related infections and conducted a prospective clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and potential drawbacks of iodine-supported implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2008 and July 2017, 653 patients (377 male and 27 female patients; mean age, 48.6) with postoperative infection or a compromised status were treated using iodine-loaded titanium implants. The mean follow-up period was 41.7 months. In 477 patients, iodine-supported implants were used to prevent infection and in 176 patients, to treat active infection (one-stage surgery, 89 patients; two-stage surgery, 87 patients). In the limbs and pelvis, the primary diagnoses included the following: 161 tumors, 92 deformities/shortening, 47 pseudarthrosis, 42 fractures, 32 infected TKA, 25 osteoarthritis, 21 pyogenic arthritis, 20 infected THA, and 6 osteomyelitis. In the spinal cases, there were 136 cases of tumors, 36 cases of pyogenic spondylitis, and 35 cases of degeneration. Five modes of implant failure were identified and classified as follows: soft tissue failure (type 1), aseptic loosening (type 2), structural failure (type 3), infection (type 4), and tumor progression (type 5).

RESULTS

The overall failure rate in our series was 26.3% (172/653). There were 101 mechanical failures, including 22 type 1, 20 type 2, and 59 type 3 failures. Non-mechanical causes accounted for 71 failures, including 45 type 4 and 26 type 5 failures. The overall incidence of infections was 6.8%. The mean time to the onset of infection after implantation was 9.1 months. The overall infection rate was 3.7% in the prevention cases and 15.3% in the treatment cases. There was no difference between one-stage replacement (14.6%) and two-stage replacement (16.0%). There were 11 cases of treatment for SSI of spine surgery, and the re-infection rate was 0% using iodine-coated instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The five modes of failure of the iodine-supported implant were satisfactory compared with previous reports. In particular, because the infection rate of iodine-coated implants used for compromised hosts is low compared with other methods, postoperative infection is more easily controlled. It can be considered highly effective for spinal infections that require one-stage revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

Trial registration Prospective, Observation study.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in non-oncological femoral megaprosthesis infections: minimum 5 year follow-up

PURPOSE

Megaprostheses are increasingly utilised outside of the oncological setting, and remain at significant risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) is an established treatment for PJI, however its use in non-oncological patients with femoral megaprostheses has not been widely reported. There are significant differences in patient physiology, treatment goals, and associated risks between these patient cohorts.

METHODS

We identified 14 patients who underwent DAIR for a PJI of their femoral megaprostheses, between 2000 and 2014, whom had their index procedure secondary to non-oncological indications. Patients were managed as part of a multidisciplinary team, with our standardised surgical technique including exchange of all mobile parts, and subsequent antibiotic therapy for a minimum of 3 months. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

Patients included six proximal femoral replacements, five distal femoral replacements, and three total femoral replacements. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were six males and eight females, with a mean age of 67.2 years, and mean ASA of 2.3. Nine patients (64.3%) successfully cleared their infection following DAIR at a minimum of 5 year follow-up. Five patients (35.7%) required further revision surgery, with four patients cleared of infection. No patients who underwent DAIR alone suffered complications as a result of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DAIR in these complex patients can lead to successful outcomes, but the risk of further revision remains high. The success rate (64.3%) remains on par with other studies evaluating DAIR in megaprostheses and in primary arthroplasty. This study indicates judicious use of DAIR can be an appropriate part of the treatment algorithm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.