The Mark Coventry, MD, Award: Oral Antibiotics Reduce Reinfection After Two-Stage Exchange: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Extended oral antibiotics in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty: An update

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a significant healthcare and economic burden after joint replacement surgery. Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) has been highlighted as a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective measure to mitigate the risk of infection against the increasing demands for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Several studies have demonstrated substantial reductions in PJI rates, particularly among high-risk populations receiving a 7-day course of antibiotics, mainly with use of cefadroxil. Conversely, other studies have found no significant differences or even increased infection rates, highlighting concerns over antimicrobial resistance, Clostridium difficile infections (CDI), and other antibiotic-related adverse events. Additionally, recent trends show a substantial rise in EOAP utilization across the United States, demonstrating need for clear and evidence-based guidelines. There is a need for high quality randomized controlled trials to help identify optimal patient selection criteria, antibiotic type, and duration to effectively balance the benefits of EOAP against potential risks. Although there is limited evidence of significant antibiotic associated complications with the use of EOAP, care should be utilized prior to widespread adoption with antibiotic stewardship in mind.

Preventing Orthopedic Infections

The prevention of orthopedic infections is of critical importance to improve patient outcomes and reduce health care costs. Preventative strategies can be employed preoperatively, including mitigation of medical risk factors, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus decolonization, appropriate skin preparation, and optimizing perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis; intraoperatively, including utilizing irrigation, topical antibiotics, infection control measures, and timely debridement/optimal surgical techniques; and postoperatively, including consideration of antibiotic duration after primary arthroplasty and reimplantation. This article provides an evidence-based discussion of these strategies while also highlighting areas where ongoing research may be beneficial.

Effect of oral antibiotics after two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection on subsequent antibiotic resistance within a national cohort of United States veterans

Background: Prior studies have indicated that administration of prolonged courses of oral antibiotics after Stage 2 reimplantation surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) results in a lower rate of recurrent PJI. However, there is concern that this antibiotic usage results in an increased risk of antibiotic resistance in any subsequent PJI that does occur. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent Stage 2 reimplantation surgery for PJI within the national Veterans Affairs hospital system of the United States. We compared those who received at least 2 weeks of oral antibiotics after Stage 2 reimplantation to those who did not. The primary outcome was the proportion of organisms resistant to four classes of antibiotics (tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, oral beta-lactams, and sulfonamides) in recurrent PJI. Secondary outcomes included recurrent PJI and death. Results: Of the 605 patients who underwent Stage 2 reimplantation for PJI, 154 patients received at least 14 d of antibiotics after surgery and 451 patients did not. Bacteria causing recurrent PJI in patients who received prolonged antibiotics were more likely to be resistant to tetracyclines and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but not oral beta-lactams or fluoroquinolones. There was no difference in risk of recurrent PJI or death between the two groups. Conclusions: Prolonged oral antibiotic treatment after Stage 2 reimplantation increases the risk of antibiotic resistance to some antibiotics in subsequent PJI. We recommend further research to identify the best choice of antibiotic and duration after Stage 2 reimplantation, to maximize benefits while minimizing risks.

Trends and Epidemiology in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Large Database Study

BACKGROUND

The clinical and financial burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. Therefore, further investigation is needed to characterize case volume, reason for failure, and postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to characterize contemporary indications for and complications following rTHA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rTHA between 2010 and 2021 were identified within the PearlDiver database. Adjusted rTHA incidence was calculated by dividing the annual rTHA volume by the annual primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and multiplying by 100,000. Mann-Kendall trend tests were utilized to trend revision volume, etiology, and 90-day postoperative complications. A total of 225,958 rTHAs were identified.

RESULTS

The annual volume of rTHA did not change over the study period (18,871 to 15,994; P = 0.064). However, the adjusted incidence of rTHA significantly decreased (20,169.3 to 13,061.2 per 100,000 THAs; P < 0.001). The most common causes of rTHA were aseptic implant loosening (21.5%), instability (19.8%), and infection (19.1%). The adjusted incidences of revision due to infection (4,659.9 to 2,596.1 per 100,000 THAs; P < 0.001) and aseptic implant loosening (4,651.4 to 2,493.2 per 100,000 THAs; P < 0.001) decreased over time. The adjusted rate of instability (3,149.8 to 3,245.3 per 100,000 THAs; P = 0.304) did not change. Rates of post-revision deep vein thrombosis, hematoma, surgical site infection, and transfusion significantly decreased over the study period (P < 0.05), while rates of emergency department visits and readmission did not change.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to a decreased adjusted incidence of rTHA, our analysis demonstrated a decreased incidence of infection, aseptic loosening, and various postoperative complications. However, no difference in the adjusted incidence of instability and periprosthetic fracture was seen over our study period. Continued study is necessary to further decrease the need for rTHA with a focus on the etiologies and complications that have remained unchanged.

Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection

INTRODUCTION

Although two-stage exchange has been the standard of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, single-stage exchange is emerging as an option in select patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage exchange using strict surgical indications.

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 196 patients with diagnosed PJI undergoing revision total knee and hip arthroplasty from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had PJI history, plastic surgery coverage, or extensive bone loss requiring endoprosthesis. We compared the number of patients PJI-free at 1-year follow-up using MusculoSkeletal Infection Society criteria and patients requiring re-revision between the single-stage and two-stage groups.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 61 knee patients (48.4%), 22 underwent single-stage (36%) and 39 underwent two-stage (63.9%). Of 65 hip patients (51.6%), 38 underwent single-stage (58.5%) and 27 underwent two-stage (41.5%). At a mean follow-up of 1.95 ± 0.88 years, a higher rate of knee patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (77.3% versus 69.2%, P = 0.501), however with comparable septic failure rates (18.1% single-stage versus 17.9% two-stage; P = 0.982). At a mean follow-up of 1.81 ± 0.9 years, a higher rate of hip patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (94.7% versus 81.5%, P = 0.089), and more patients had septic failures in the two-stage group (18.5% versus 5.3%; P = 0.089). No differences were observed in the microorganism profile. More total complications ( P = 0.021) and mortalities were found in the single-stage knee cohort than in the two-stage cohort (22.7% versus 2.6%; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage arthroplasty is a viable alternative to standard two-stage exchange in patients with PJI without a history of infection and with no bone or soft-tissue compromise. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Trends and Epidemiology in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Large Database Study

BACKGROUND

As the volume of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continues to grow, the clinical and financial burden of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is expected to increase. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize contemporary indications and complications for rTKA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rTKA between 2010 and 2021 were identified within an administrative claims database. Adjusted rTKA incidence was calculated by dividing the annual rTKA volume by the annual primary TKA and multiplying by 100,000. Mann-Kendall trend tests were utilized to trend revision volume, etiology, 90-day postoperative complications, and patient demographics.

RESULTS

A total of 397,367 rTKA were identified over our study period, of which 287,492 (72.4%) had coding regarding revision etiology. The volume of annual rTKA (31,091 to 33,850; P = 0.451) did not change over the study period. The adjusted incidence of rTKA decreased (25,568.3 to 19,272.2 per 100,000 annual TKA; P = 0.011). The leading causes of revision TKA were infection (21.2%), aseptic implant loosening (19.3%), and instability (9.8%). The rate of septic revision (4,710.5 to 4,426.1 per 100,000 annual TKAs) and aseptic implant loosening (4,502.5 to 3,636.4 per 100,000 annual TKAs) did not change (both P values > 0.05). The rates of instability increased (1,369.2 to 2,609.85 per 100,000 annual TKAs; P = 0.007). The rates of postrevision surgical site infection, periprosthetic joint infection, deep vein thrombosis, and transfusion decreased over the study period, while rates of emergency department visits and readmission increased (all P values <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of revision TKA may be slowing. While the risk of revision for infection and aseptic loosening remains unchanged, revision for instability has increased. The rates of postoperative complications appear to have decreased. Improved surgical technique, implant design, and perioperative protocols may have contributed to these findings. Continued work is necessary to reduce the risk of failure and postoperative complications.

Benefits and Adverse Events Associated With Extended Antibiotic Use for One Year Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are common and serious complications following knee and hip arthroplasty. Our previous retrospective study suggested extended antibiotics following debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) decreased failure rates and were not associated with increased adverse events (AEs) as compared to a standard 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy. Further, extended antibiotics beyond one year did not provide additional benefits. These observations were tested in this prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent DAIR for total knee arthroplasty PJI and received primary antibiotics were compared to patients who received primary antibiotics combined with extended antibiotics for one year. Participants had a minimum of 2-year follow-up after the final dose of antibiotics.

RESULTS

A prospective cohort of 79 patients was followed, where 39 participants (52.7%) received primary antibiotics and 35 participants (47.3%) received both primary and extended antibiotics following DAIR. Multivariable time-to-event analyses revealed that extended antibiotic use was an independent predictor of treatment success. Infection-free survival differed significantly between the two treatment regimens, as the hazard of PJI failure was significantly lower for extended antibiotics as compared to primary antibiotics alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.46 [0.24 to 0.87], P = 0.017). The AE rates did not significantly differ between patients treated with primary antibiotics only versus primary combined with extended antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective cohort study supports our previous observations that extended antibiotics for one year were associated with lower failure rates as compared to primary antibiotics alone. Extended antibiotics after primary antibiotics were not found to be associated with increased AEs as compared to only primary antibiotics.

Not so Fast: Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Does Not Reduce 90-Day Infection Rate Following Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following both total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been reported to reduce PJI following TJA in high-risk patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if EOA reduces PJI in all-comers and high-risk THA and TKA populations.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, including 4,576 patients undergoing primary THA or TKA at a single institution from 2018 to 2022. Beginning in 2020, EOA prophylaxis was administered for 10 days following THA or TKA at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts (1,769 EOA, 2,807 no EOA) based on whether they received postoperative EOA. The 90-day and 1-year outcomes, with a focus on PJI, were then compared between groups. A subgroup analysis of high-risk patients was also performed.

RESULTS

There was no difference in 90-day PJI rates between cohorts (EOA 1 versus no EOA 0.8%; P = .6). The difference in the rate of PJI remained insignificant at 1 year (EOA 1 versus no EOA 1%; P = .9). Similarly, our subgroup analysis of high-risk patients demonstrated no difference in postoperative PJI between EOA (n = 254) and no EOA (n = 396) (0.8 versus 2.3%, respectively; P = .2). Reassuringly, we also found no differences in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (EOA 0.1 versus no EOA 0.1%; P > .9) or in antibiotic resistance among those who developed PJI within 90 days (EOA 59 versus no EOA 83%; P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS

With the numbers available for analysis, EOA prophylaxis was not associated with PJI risk reduction following primary TJA when universally deployed. Furthermore, among high-risk patients, there was no statistically significant difference. While we did not identify increased antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile infection, we cannot recommend wide-spread adoption of EOA prophylaxis, and clarification regarding the role of EOA, even in high-risk patients, is needed.

[Study on effectiveness of antibiotics guided by metagenomic next-generation sequencing to control infection after total knee arthroplasty]

Objective

To explore the clinical value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

Between April 2020 and March 2023, 10 patients with PJI after TKA were admitted. There were 3 males and 7 females with an average age of 69.9 years (range, 44-83 years). Infection occurred after 8-35 months of TKA (mean, 19.5 months). The duration of infection ranged from 16 to 128 days (mean, 37 days). The preoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 15-85 mm/1 h (mean, 50.2 mm/1 h). The C reactive protein (CRP) was 4.4-410.0 mg/L (mean, 192.8 mg/L). The white blood cell counting was (3.4-23.8)×10 9/L (mean, 12.3×10 9/L). The absolute value of neutrophils was (1.1-22.5)×10 9/L (mean, 9.2×10 9/L). After admission, the joint fluid was extracted for bacterial culture method and mNGS test, and sensitive antibiotics were chosen according to the results of the test, and the infection was controlled in combination with surgery.

Results

Seven cases (70%) were detected as positive by bacterial culture method, and 7 types of pathogenic bacteria were detected; the most common pathogenic bacterium was Streptococcus lactis arrestans. Ten cases (100%) were detected as positive by mNGS test, and 11 types of pathogenic bacteria were detected; the most common pathogenic bacterium was Propionibacterium acnes. The difference in the positive rate between the two methods was significant ( P=0.211). Three of the 7 patients who were positive for both the bacterial culture method and the mNGS test had the same results for the type of pathogenic bacteria, with a compliance rate of 42.86% (3/7). The testing time (from sample delivery to results) was (4.95±2.14) days for bacterial culture method and (1.60±0.52) days for mNGS test, and the difference was significant ( t=4.810, P<0.001). The corresponding sensitive antibiotic treatment was chosen according to the results of bacterial culture method and mNGS test. At 3 days after the one-stage operation, the CRP was 6.8-48.2 mg/L (mean, 23.6 mg/L); the ESR was 17-53 mm/1 h (mean, 35.5 mm/1 h); the white blood cell counting was (4.5-8.1)×10 9/L (mean, 6.1×10 9/L); the absolute value of neutrophils was (2.3-5.7)×10 9/L (mean, 4.1×10 9/L). All patients were followed up 12-39 months (mean, 23.5 months). One case had recurrence of infection at 6 months after operation, and the remaining 9 cases showed no signs of infection, with an infection control rate of 90%.

Conclusion

Compared with bacterial culture method, mNGS test can more rapidly and accurately detect pathogenic bacteria for PJI after TKA, which is important for guiding antibiotics combined with surgical treatment of PJI.

Description of reinfection of joint prosthesis after 2-stage replacement (infection of the 2nd stage prosthesis): A multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage exchange is the gold standard in the surgical management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, perioperative reinfections (RePJI) can occur to newly inserted prosthesis, which highlights the importance of an adequate antibiotic prophylaxis, although there is scarce evidence in this field. Our objective was to evaluate the characteristics of RePJI, its prognosis and the antibiotic prophylaxis that is commonly used in second-stage surgery.

METHODS

Multicentric retrospective observational study in Spanish hospitals including patients with RePJI between 2009 and 2018.

RESULTS

We included 92 patients with RePJI from 12 hospitals. The most frequent isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis in 35 cases (38.5%); 61.1% of staphylococci were methiciliin-resistant. In 12 cases (13%), the same microoganism causing the primary PJI was isolated in RePJI. When comparing with the microbiology of primary PJI, there were more cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria (the most frequent was Pseudomonas spp.) and less by Gram-positive bacteria. Failure occured in 69 cases (75%). There were 43 different courses of antibiotic prophylaxis after the second-stage surgery; the most frequent was a unique preoperative cefazolin dose, but most patients received prophylaxis before and after the second-stage surgery (61 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequent microorganisms in RePJI are coagulase-negative staphylococci, although Gram-negative bacteria, especially Pseudomonas spp. are also common. There is a significant heterogeneity in antibiotic prophylaxis for a second-stage surgery. ReIPJI treatment has a high failure rate.

Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in second-stage surgery in joint prosthesis infection treated with two-stage exchange. A multicenter case-control study

INTRODUCTION

After two-stage exchange due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), the new prosthesis carries a high risk of reinfection (RePJI). There isn`t solid evidence regarding the antibiotic prophylaxis in 2nd-stage surgery. The objective of this study is to describe what antibiotic prophylaxis is used in this surgery and evaluate its impact on the risk of developing RePJI.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter case-control study in Spanish hospitals. The study included cases of PJI treated with two-stage exchange and subsequently developed a new infection. For each case, two controls were included, matched by prosthesis location, center, and year of surgery. The prophylaxis regimens were grouped based on their antibacterial spectrum, and we calculated the association between the type of regimen and the development of RePJI using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for possible confounding factors.

RESULTS

We included 90 cases from 12 centers, which were compared with 172 controls. The most frequent causative microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis with 34 cases (37.8%). Staphylococci were responsible for 50 cases (55.6%), 32 of them (64%) methicillin-resistant. Gram-negative bacilli were involved in 30 cases (33.3%), the most common Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In total, 83 different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens were used in 2nd-stage surgery, the most frequent a single preoperative dose of cefazolin (48 occasions; 18.3%); however, it was most common a combination of a glycopeptide and a beta-lactam with activity against Pseudomonas spp (99 cases, 25.2%). In the adjusted analysis, regimens that included antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci AND Pseudomonas spp were associated with a significantly lower risk of RePJI (adjusted OR = 0.24; 95% IC: 0.09-0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of standardization in 2nd-satge surgery prophylaxis explains the wide diversity of regimens used in this procedure. The results suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis in this surgery should include an antibiotic with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and Pseudomonas.

Infection Rates After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Few US studies have investigated the efficacy of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA). This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-THA performed with EOAP with PJI rates in published studies of aseptic R-THA patients not receiving EOAP.

METHODS

Prospectively documented data on 127 consecutive aseptic R-THAs were retrospectively reviewed. Evidence-based perioperative infection prevention protocols were used, and all patients were discharged on 7-day EOAP. Superficial and deep infections at 30 and 90 days postoperatively and at mean latest follow-up of 27.8 months were statistically compared with all US studies reporting the prevalence of PJI after aseptic R-THA. Complications related to EOAP within 120 days of the index procedure also are reported.

RESULTS

No superficial or deep infections were observed at 30 and 90 days postoperatively when 7-day postdischarge EOAP was used. Superficial and deep infection rates were 1.57% (two patients) and 3.15% (four patients) at mean latest follow-up, respectively. Comparisons with published 30-day PJI rates of 1.37% ( P = 0.423) and 1.85% ( P = 0.257) were not statistically significant. Two of four comparisons with published 90-day PJI rates of 3.43% ( P = 0.027) and 5.74% ( P = 0.001) were statistically different. The deep PJI rate of 3.15% at mean latest follow-up was significantly lower than two of three published rates at equivalent follow-up including 10.10% ( P = 0.009) and 9.12% ( P = 0.041). No antibiotic-related complications were observed within 120 days of the index procedure.

DISCUSSION

Study findings possibly support the use of EOAP after aseptic R-THA to prevent catastrophic PJI with revision implants, indicating that the efficacy of EOAP cannot be definitively ruled-in or ruled-out based on available evidence.

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.

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.

Impact of Positive Cultures During the Second Stage of a Two-Stage Exchange: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange is a frequently performed procedure in patients who have a periprosthetic joint infection. Positive cultures when performing the second stage are perceived as a risk factor for reinfection. This study aimed to determine the impact of positive cultures during the second stage on the outcome of patients undergoing a 2-stage septic exchange and the impact of stopping the antibiotic treatment before reimplantation.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases. We performed a meta-analysis on the risk of complications after positive cultures during second stage and a subgroup analysis by antibiotic holiday period. We included 24 studies.

RESULTS

Failure in the positive group was 37.0% and in the negative group was 13.7% with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.05. In the subgroup analysis by antibiotic holidays, failure rate without holidays was 15% and with holidays was 17.3% (P = .21). Failure in each group was higher when cultures were positive (without holidays, 25 versus 12.2%, P = .0003, and with holidays 41.1 versus 12.7%, P < .0001), but the risk of failure when cultures were positive was higher in the holiday group (OR 4.798) than in the nonholiday group (OR 2.225) in comparison to those patients who were culture negative at the second stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Microbiological eradication at second stage was not obtained in 18% of cases and it was associated with a higher failure rate. In patients with positive cultures, withholding antibiotic treatment was associated with lower failure rate. Further studies to define the antibiotic strategy in 2-stage exchange procedure are necessary.

How are Oral Antibiotics Being Used in Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Review of the Literature

While the role and benefit of perioperative intravenous (IV) antibiotics in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is well-established, oral antibiotic use in TJA remains a controversial topic with wide variations in practice patterns. With this review, we aimed to better educate the orthopedic surgeon on when and how oral antibiotics may be used most effectively in TJA patients, and to identify gaps in the literature that could be clarified with targeted research. Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) use in high-risk primary, aseptic revision, and exchange TJA for infection may be useful in decreasing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. When prescribing oral antibiotics either as EOAP or for draining wounds, patient factors, type of surgery, and type of infectious organisms should be considered in order to optimally prevent and treat PJI. It is important to maintain antibiotic stewardship by administering the proper duration, dose, and type of antibiotics and by consulting infectious disease when necessary.

The Use of Oral Antibiotics After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

» There is conflicting and insufficient evidence that extended oral antibiotic (EOA) therapy prevents infection in high-risk patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA), limiting recommendation for or against the practice.» In the case of aseptic revision TJA, the evidence is also conflicting and limited by underlying confounders, preventing recommendation for use of EOA.» There is fair evidence that use of EOA after debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis prolongs infection-free survival, but randomized controlled trials are needed. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that patients undergoing 2-stage revision should receive a period of suppressive oral antibiotics after the second stage.» The optimal duration of EOA in primary TJA, aseptic revision, and debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis is unknown. However, there is strong evidence that 3 months of EOA suppression may be appropriate after reimplantation as part of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty.» Complications secondary to EOA are reported to be between 0% and 13.7%, yet are inconsistently reported and poorly defined. The risks associated with antibiotic use, including development of antimicrobial resistance, must be weighed against a possible decrease in infection rate.

Design Characteristics and Recruitment Rates for Randomized Trials of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection Management: A Systematic Review

Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) present a major management challenge for practicing orthopedic surgeons and infectious disease physicians. There are few high-quality data to inform treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to report the design characteristics and recruitment rates for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PJI management. Trials were considered eligible for inclusion if human participants were randomized to any management intervention for PJI. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register until the end of May 2023. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112646). We identified 15 published RCTs with a total of 1743 participants with PJI. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of successfully recruited participants was 63 (38-140), with 0.28 (0.13-0.96) enrolments per site per month. Only four trials (36.4%) achieved the target recruitment. All RCTs applied different primary endpoints and varying definitions of a 'good' outcome. Despite recent improvements, PJI RCTs are characterized by slow recruitment and heterogeneous endpoint assessments, which preclude synthesis in a standard meta-analytic framework. To inform international guidelines, future PJI trials should be run as multi-country trials at high-recruiting sites.

Is Prolonged Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Postoperative Antithrombotic and Antispasmodic Treatments Necessary After Digit Replantation or Revascularization?

BACKGROUND

Ensuring the patency of repaired vessels is pivotal in improving the success rate of digit replantation. There is no consensus on how to best approach postoperative treatment for digit replantation. The influence of postoperative treatment on the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation remains unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there an increased risk of postoperative infection with early discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis? (2) How are anxiety and depression affected by a treatment protocol consisting of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis and administration of antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs and by the failure of a revascularization or replantation procedure? (3) Are there differences in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins? (4) What factors are associated with failure of revascularization or replantation?

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022. Initially, 1045 patients were identified. One hundred two patients chose revision of amputation. In all, 556 were excluded because of contraindications. We included all patients in whom the anatomic structures of the amputated part of the digit were well preserved, and those with an ischemia time for the amputated part that did not exceed 6 hours. Patients in good health without any other serious associated injuries or systemic diseases and those without a history of smoking were eligible for inclusion. The patients underwent procedures that were performed or supervised by one of four study surgeons. Patients were treated with antibiotic prophylaxis (1 week); patients treated with antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. The remaining patients treated with antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 48 hours and no antithrombotic and no antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the nonprolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. Postoperative follow-up was for a minimum of 1 month. Based on the inclusion criteria, 387 participants with 465 digits were selected for an analysis of postoperative infection. Twenty-five participants with a postoperative infection (six digits) and other complications (19 digits) were excluded from the next stage of the study, in which we assessed factors associated with the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation. A total of 362 participants with 440 digits were examined, including the postoperative survival rate, variation in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, the association between the survival rate and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, and the survival rate based on the number of anastomosed vessels. Postoperative infection was defined as swelling, erythema, pain, purulent discharge, or a positive bacterial culture result. Patients were followed for 1 month. The differences in anxiety and depression scores between the two treatment groups and the differences in anxiety and depression scores based on failure of revascularization or replantation were determined. The difference in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins was assessed. Except for statistically significant variables (injury type and procedure), we thought that the number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, treatment protocol, and surgeons would be important. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to perform an adjusted analysis of risk factors such as postoperative protocol, injury type, procedure, number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, and surgeon.

RESULTS

Postoperative infection did not appear to increase without prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis beyond 48 hours (1% [3 of 327] versus 2% [3 of 138]; OR 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 12.0]; p = 0.37). Intervention with antithrombotic and antispasmodic therapy increased the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.2 ± 3.0 versus 6.7 ± 2.9, mean difference 4.5 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.2]; p < 0.01) and depression (7.9 ± 3.2 versus 5.2 ± 2.7, mean difference 2.7 [95% CI 2.1 to 3.4]; p < 0.01). In the analysis based on the failure of revascularization or replantation, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.4 ± 4.4 versus 9.7 ± 3.5, mean difference 1.7 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.8]; p < 0.01) and depression (8.5 ± 4.6 versus 7.0 ± 3.1, mean difference 1.5 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.5]; p < 0.01) were higher in the failed revascularization or replantation group than in the successful revascularization or replantation group. There was no increase in the artery-related risk of failure (one versus two anastomosed arteries: 91% versus 89%, OR 1.3 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.6]; p = 0.53). For patients with anastomosed veins, a similar outcome was observed for the two vein-related risk of failure (two versus one anastomosed vein: 90% versus 89%, OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p = 0.95) and three vein-related risk of failure (three versus one vein anastomosed: 96% versus 89%, OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.1 to 2.4]; p = 0.29). Factors associated with failure of revascularization or replantation included the mechanism of injury (crush: OR 4.2 [95% CI 1.6 to 11.2]; p < 0.01, avulsion: OR 10.2 [95% CI 3.4 to 30.7]; p < 0.01). Revascularization had a lower risk of failure than replantation (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.04). Treatment with a protocol of prolonged antibiotics, antithrombotics, and antispasmodics was not associated with a lower risk of failure (OR 1.2 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.3]; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSION

With proper wound debridement and patency of repaired vessels, prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis and regular antithrombotic and antispasmodic treatment may not be necessary for successful digit replantation. However, it may be associated with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. Postoperative mental status is associated with digit survival. Well-repaired vessels, instead of the number of anastomosed vessels, could be critical to survival and decrease the influence of risk factors. Further research on consensus guidelines that compare postoperative treatment and the surgeon's level of expertise after digit replantation should be conducted at multiple institutions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

The Challenge of Emerging Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens in Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections

➤ An increase in resistant bacterial pathogens has occurred over the last 4 decades.➤ Careful patient selection and improving or correcting risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) before elective surgical treatment are strongly recommended. ➤ Appropriate microbiological methods, including those used to detect and grow Cutibacterium acnes, are recommended. ➤ Antimicrobial agents used in the prevention or management of infection should be selected appropriately and the duration of therapy should be carefully considered in order to mitigate the risk of developing bacterial resistance.➤ Molecular methods including rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostics, 16S sequencing, and/or shotgun and/or targeted whole-genome sequencing are recommended in culture-negative cases of PJI.➤ Expert consultation with an infectious diseases specialist (if available) is recommended to assist with the appropriate antimicrobial management and monitoring of patients with PJI.

Short Course of Oral Antibiotic Treatment After Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty Appears to Decrease Early Reinfection

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence has suggested a benefit to extended postoperative prophylactic oral antibiotics after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. We sought to determine reinfection rates with and without a short course of oral antibiotics after two-stage exchange procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip or knee. Patients were excluded if they failed a prior two-stage exchange, had positive cultures at reimplantation, prolonged intravenous antibiotics postoperatively, and/or life-long suppression. This resulted in 444 reimplantations (210 hips and 234 knees). Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the duration of oral antibiotics after reimplantation: no antibiotics (102), ≤2 weeks (266), or >2 weeks (76). The primary endpoint was reinfection within 1 year of reimplantation.

RESULTS

Within 1 year of reimplantation, there were 34 reinfections. In the no-antibiotic, ≤ 2-week, and >2-week cohorts the reinfection rates were 14.1, 7.0, and 6.4%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression showed a reduced reinfection rate in the ≤2-week cohort relative to no antibiotics (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.38, P = .01). While the smaller cohort with >2 weeks of antibiotics did not significantly reduce the reinfection rate (HR: 0.41, P = .12), when combined with the ≤2-week cohort, use of oral antibiotics had an overall reduction of the reinfection rate (HR: 0.39, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the hypothesis that a short course of oral antibiotics after reimplantation decreases the 1-year reinfection rate. Future randomized studies should seek to examine the efficacy of different durations of oral antibiotics to reduce reinfection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV.

Dose optimization in surgical prophylaxis: sub-inhibitory dosing of vancomycin increases rates of biofilm formation and the rates of surgical site infection

Antibiotic stewardship is viewed as having great public health benefit with limited direct benefit to the patient at the time of administration. The objective of our study was to determine if inappropriate administration of antibiotics could create conditions that would increase the rates of surgical infection. We hypothesized that sub-MIC levels of vancomycin would increase Staphylococcus aureus growth, biofilm formation, and rates of infection. S. aureus MRSA and MSSA strains were used for all experiments. Bacteria were grown planktonically and monitored using spectrophotometry. Quantitative agar culture was used to measure planktonic and biofilm bacterial burden. A mouse abscess model was used to confirm phenotypes in vivo. In the planktonic growth assay, increases in bacterial burden at ¼ MIC vancomycin were observed in USA300 JE2 by 72 h. Similar findings were observed with ½ MIC in Newman and SH1000. For biofilm formation, USA300 JE2 at ¼ and ½ MIC vancomycin increased biofilm formation by approximately 1.3- and 2.3-fold respectively at 72 h as compared to untreated controls. Similar findings were observed with Newman and SH1000 with a 2.4-fold increase in biofilm formation at ½ MIC vancomycin. In a mouse abscess model, there was a 1.2-fold increase with sub-MIC vancomycin at 3 days post infection. Our study showed that Sub-optimal vancomycin dosing promoted S. aureus planktonic growth and biofilm formation, phenotypic measures of bacterial virulence. This phenotype induced by sub-MIC levels of vancomycin was also observed to increase rates of infection and pathogenesis in our mouse model. Risks of exposure to sub-MIC concentrations with vancomycin in surgical procedures are greater as there is decreased bioavailability in tissue in comparison to other antibiotics. This highlights the importance of proper antibiotic selection, stewardship, and dosing for both surgical prophylaxis and treatment of infection.

Risk Factors for Treatment Failure in Patients Who Have Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treated With Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty as Well as Their Fate

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the gold standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a scarcity of research investigating the major risk factors for infection recurrence and the prognosis after infection recurrence.

METHODS

This study included 203 patients who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty between June 22, 2010 and January 24, 2017. The need of reoperation for infection-related or PJI-related mortality was considered treatment failure. Participant age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, culture results, length of hospital stay, cause of treatment failure, operative procedure, and fate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients experienced treatment failure (26.1%). Mean follow-up was 63 months (range, 26-103). Based on the multivariate analyses, risk factors for treatment failure included men and positive intraoperative culture during reimplantation. Recurrent infection was most commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus (32.1%, 17/53), and new microorganisms caused recurrent infection in 34 of 53 (64.2%) patients. In 44 patients who had treatment failure, debridement, antibiotic therapy, irrigation, and retention of prosthesis (DAIR) performed within 6 months of reimplantation and at <3 weeks from symptom onset resulted in a significantly higher success rate than the use of other DAIR protocols (P = .031).

CONCLUSION

Men and positive intraoperative culture are major risk factors for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty failure in patients who have knee PJI. Recurrent infection in these patients is usually caused by new microorganisms. DAIR within 6 months of reimplantation and at <3 weeks from symptom onset results in good outcomes in these patients.

One- or two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee prosthesis?

A prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is possibly the most significant potential complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and is associated with substantial morbidity and socioeconomic burden. It is a devastating complication for both the patient and the surgeon alike. A two-stage revision approach for infected TKA has been the standard for surgical management; however, there is growing interest in single-stage revision surgery due to fewer procedures, reduced inpatient hospital stay and reduced costs to healthcare systems. A one-stage exchange is indicated when there is no sign of systemic sepsis and in cases where a microorganism has been isolated. It involves removal of the old prosthesis, debridement of all infected tissue, a copious washout and re-draping, and finally, re-implantation of a new prosthesis. The two-stage approach involves the use of an antibiotic spacer before the second stage is carried out. The length of time between the stages is discussed. Patients with a PJI should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. We recommend these patients are managed in specialist arthroplasty centres by high volume revision arthroplasty specialists.

Risk of Treatment Failure for Prosthetic Joint Infections: Retrospective Chart Review in an Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Program

Background

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a major complication of total joint replacement surgeries. Treatment includes surgical intervention with prolonged courses of IV antibiotics in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programs. The risk of PJI treatment failure is high and may be associated with various clinical factors.

Objectives

To determine the rate of PJI treatment failure and to identify potential risk factors for failure in patients admitted to an OPAT program.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for adult patients with PJI admitted to an OPAT program between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. Treatment courses were deemed to have failed according to predetermined criteria. χ² tests and multiple linear regression were used to examine associations of comorbidities, pathogens, and antimicrobial regimens with treatment failure.

Results

In total, 100 patients associated with 137 PJI treatment courses in the OPAT program were included. Of these, 28 patients accounted for 65 of the treatment courses. Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated pathogen (31/137 or 22.6% of treatment courses). Patient comorbidities included body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² (58% of patients) and diabetes (41% of patients). The overall rate of treatment failure was 56.2% (77/137 treatment courses). Selected risk factors associated with treatment failure or success were diabetes (50.9% versus 29.8%; odds ratio [OR] 4.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-12.88, p = 0.013) and depression (32.1% versus 14.9%; OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.30-22.89, p = 0.025).

Conclusions

The overall rate of PJI treatment failure in the study population was high. Patients with diabetes and depression experienced higher incidences of failure. Future investigations of comprehensive PJI management should be considered to ensure successful treatment and to minimize excessive use of health care resources.

Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Prescribed Suppressive Antibiotic Therapy Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A 1:4 Case Control Matched Study

Background: Oral suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) has emerged as a potential means to increase rates of infection-free survival in many complex peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) cases after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the risk of PJI of a new primary TJA in patients on oral SAT. Patients and Methods: A retrospective matched cohort study from five hospitals in a 20-year period within a large hospital network was performed. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients over age 18 undergoing primary TJA, with any order for oral long-term (>6 months duration) SAT, and minimum of one-year clinical follow-up. Patients were matched 1:4 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hip or knee surgery, diabetes mellitus, smoking status, and indication for primary TJA. Student t-test, Fisher exact, and χ² tests were utilized for group comparisons. Our study was powered to detect a 10.5% increase in PJI incidence compared with a 1% baseline rate of PJI. Results: We identified 45 TJA in 33 patients receiving SAT, which were matched to 180 control cases. There was no difference in the rate of development of PJI at any time point within follow-up between the SAT cohort and control group (2.22% vs. 1.11%; p = 0.561). Conclusions: We found a 2.22% rate of PJI in a cohort of patients receiving SAT identified over a 20-year period. As the clinical scenario of primary TJA while on SAT is rare but likely to become more prevalent, future large-scale studies can be performed to better clarify rates and risk of PJI in this population.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND

Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m² (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years).

RESULTS

The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

EOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Post-operative prophylactic antibiotics in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matching analysis

The use of extended antibiotic (EA) prophylaxis (> 24 h) remains controversial in aseptic revision arthroplasty. We sought to determine whether EA prophylaxis reduces the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty. A total of 2800 patients undergoing aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty at five institutional databases from 2008 to 2017 were evaluated. One to two nearest-neighbor propensity score matching analysis was conducted between patients who did and did not receive extended antibiotic prophylaxis. The matching elements included age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital distribution, year of surgery, joint (hip or knee), surgical time, CRP, preoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and length of stay. The primary outcome was the development of PJI, which was assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year following revision and analyzed separately. A total of 2467 (88%) patients received EA prophylaxis, and 333 (12%) patients received standard antibiotic (SA) prophylaxis (≤ 24 h). In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no difference between patients who received EA prophylaxis and those who did not in terms of 30-day PJI (0.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 1.00), 90-day PJI (1.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.62) and 1- year PJI (3.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.109). For revision hip, the incidence of PJI was 0.2% vs 0% at 30 days (p = 0.482), 1.6% vs 1.4% at 90 days (p = 0.837), and 3.4% vs 5.1% at 1 year (p = 0.305) in the EA and SA group. For revision knee, the incidence of PJI was 0.4% vs 0.9% at 30 days (p = 0.63), 1.8% vs 3.4% at 90 days (p = 0.331), and 4.4% vs 7.8% at 1 year (p = 0.203) in the EA and SA group. A post hoc power analysis revealed an adequate sample size with a beta value of 83%. In addition, the risks of Clostridium difficile and resistant organism infection were not increased. This multi-institutional study demonstrated no difference in the rate of PJIs between patients who received extended antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not in aseptic revision arthroplasty. The risk of C. difficile and resistant organism infection was not increased with prolonged antibiotic use.

Rates of Antimicrobial Resistance With Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Total Joint Arthroplasty

Background

There is increased interest and utilization of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) following primary and revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The purpose of this study was to look for potential associations between EOAP and differential rates of antimicrobial resistance or epidemiology of organisms causing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary and aseptic revision THAs/TKAs.

Methods

Patients who developed PJI following a primary or aseptic revision TKA/THA at a single institution from 2009 to 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients who received at least 7 days of EOAP following the surgery were noted. Rates of antimicrobial resistance were compared between standard antibiotic prophylaxis and EOAP cohorts using the Fisher's exact test.

Results

One hundred twenty-eight cultures were obtained from 119 patients with PJI. Fourty-four cases (37%) developed PJI after EOAP. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated organism (30% of all cultures; 78% were methicillin-sensitive). Rates of antimicrobial resistance were similar between standard antibiotic prophylaxis and EOAP cohorts in all but 2 instances: Increased resistance to erythromycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was observed in coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolates in the EOAP cohort (89% vs 21%, P < .01; 44% vs 0%, P = .02). An increased frequency of gram-negative organisms was observed in the EOAP group (22% vs 8%, P = .03).

Conclusions

Rates of antimicrobial resistance were not significantly different between EOAP and standard antibiotic prophylaxis cohorts except in coagulase-negative Staphylococci. The increased frequency of gram-negative infections was present in the EOAP cohort. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to better understand the impact of EOAP on antimicrobial resistance and PJI epidemiology.

Level of Evidence

Level III; retrospective cohort study.

The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.

METHODS

Two-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Extended Oral Antibiotics Increase Bacterial Resistance in Patients Who Fail 2-Stage Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Although studies have demonstrated reductions in recurrent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with the administration of prolonged oral antibiotics at second-stage reimplantation, the potential for increasing bacterial resistance has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to determine if oral antibiotics at second-stage reimplantation increased the rate of antibiotic resistance in subsequent infections.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent 2-stage exchange for chronic PJI from 2014 to 2019. We compared those who had received prolonged oral antibiotics at the time of stage 2 reimplantation with those who did not. The primary outcome was the presence of resistant organisms in any subsequent infection. The secondary outcome was the overall rate of recurrent PJI in the 2 groups. Multivariable analyses controlling for demographics and comorbid conditions were used.

RESULTS

Of the 211 patients who underwent 2-stage exchange for PJI, 158 patients received prolonged oral antibiotics. The mean follow-up was 2.2 years. Recurrent PJI was diagnosed in 24 of 158 (15%) patients who received oral antibiotics compared with 11 of 53 (21%) patients who did not receive antibiotics (P = .35). PJI with resistant organisms was identified in 16 of 24 (67%) patients who received antibiotics compared with 0 of 11 (0%) patients who did not receive antibiotics (P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged oral antibiotics following 2-stage exchange increase drug resistance to that antibiotic in subsequent PJI. We recommend further research in the area to refine antimicrobial protocols as we consider the risks and benefits of prolonged antibiotic treatment.

Is There a Role for Extended Postoperative Oral Antibiotics in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty High-Risk Individuals After Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

With moderate level of evidence, 76% of delegates (super majority/strong consensus) of the most recent (2018) International Consensus Meeting on orthopedic infections agreed that extended oral antibiotics directed toward initial organisms after reimplantation for 3 months probably reduce the risk of failure due to periprosthetic joint infection. Nevertheless, the use of oral antibiotics becomes increasingly problematic with extended or long-term utilization. The development of antibiotic resistance and side effects are of particular concern, the most common being Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Antibiotic stewardship is important when preventing and treating periprosthetic joint infection to hopefully prevent increase of bacterial antibiotic resistance. Two recent studies showed a significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infections after arthroplasty procedures in high-risk patients during short- and long-term follow-up without significant increase of adverse effects. However, another study showed no significant benefit of this practice. This summary discussed the details of those studies suggesting that the use of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty may reduce infection rates; nonetheless, additional higher level of evidence (level 1) is still needed to validate this practice as its potential adverse effects are not clear.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision TKA: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND

Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to potentially reduce infection rates after high-risk primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and reimplantations. However, data is limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision TKAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision TKAs.

METHODS

904 aseptic revision TKAs from 2014-2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 267) were compared to those who did not (n = 637) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 33 kg/m², and 54% were female. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, and re-revision or reoperation for infection.

RESULTS

The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision TKA was 1.9% at 90 days, 3.5% at 1 year, and 8.1% at 5 years. Patients without EOA had a higher risk of any infection at 90 days (HR = 7.1; P = .01), but not other time points. The cumulative probability of PJI after aseptic revision TKA was 0.8% at 90 days, 2.3% at 1 year, and 6.5% at 5 years. Patients without EOA did not have an increased risk of PJI. There were no differences in re-revision or reoperation for infection at any time point between groups.

CONCLUSION

Extended oral antibiotics after aseptic revision TKA were associated with a 7-fold decreased risk of any infection at 90 days. The results suggest a potential role for EOA after aseptic revision TKA and warrant additional prospective studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Comparing Articulating Spacers for Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: All-Cement Versus Real-Component Articulating Spacers

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of methods available to treat periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), including 2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic spacer. This study compares the outcomes of real-component (RC) and all-cement (AC) articulating spacers for total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI treatment.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study assessed all articulating spacers placed for THA PJI between April 2011 and August 2020. Patients were dichotomized based on spacer type (RC vs AC).

RESULTS

One hundred four patients received articulating spacer constructs (RC group = 75, AC group = 29). Leg-length discrepancy was significantly greater in the AC group after the second stage (3.58 vs 12.00 mm, P = .023). There were no significant differences in reoperation rates following first-stage spacer placement (P = .752) and time to reimplantation (P = .127) between the groups. There were no significant differences in reinfection rates (RC group = 10.0%, AC group = 7.1%, P = 1.000) and reoperation rates following second-stage revision THA (RC group = 11.7%, AC group = 10.7%, P = 1.000). Hospital length of stay (in days) had a trend toward being shorter following the first (7.35 vs 11.96, P = .166) and second stage (3.95 vs 5.43, P = .107) for patients in the RC group. Patients in the RC group were more likely to be discharged home following the first (P = .020) and second (P = .039) stages.

CONCLUSION

Given that there were no differences in reinfection and reoperation rates between the 2 spacer constructs, RC articulating spacers may provide a significant benefit for patient comfort during 2-stage exchange treatment of PJI while adding no increase in risk profile.

Reduced Infection Rate After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Protocol

BACKGROUND

The optimal postoperative antibiotic duration has not been determined for aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) where the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 3%-7.5%. This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-TKA performed with extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) to published rates.

METHODS

Aseptic R-TKAs consecutively performed between 2013 and 2017 at a tertiary care referral center in the American Midwest were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were administered intravenous antibiotics while hospitalized and discharged on 7-day oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Infection rates and antibiotic-related complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the 176 analysis patients were female, with an average age of 64 years and body mass index of 35 kg/m². Instability and aseptic loosening comprised 86% of revision diagnoses. Overall, 87.5% of intraoperative cultures were negative, and the remainder were single positive cultures considered contaminants. PJI rates were 0% at 90 days, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 0.4%-5.3%) at 1 year, and 2.2% (95% confidence interval 0.6%-5.7%) at mean follow-up of approximately 3 years (range, 7-65 months).

CONCLUSION

EOAP after aseptic R-TKA resulted in a PJI rate equivalent to primary TKA, representing a 2- to-4-fold decrease compared with published aseptic R-TKA infection rates. Further study on the benefits and costs of EOAP after aseptic R-TKA is encouraged.

Time Required for Planned and Unplanned Episodes of Care in Septic Two-Stage Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Septic revision total hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) arthroplasty requires more effort but is reimbursed less than primary procedures per minute of intraoperative time. This study quantified planned and unplanned work performed by the surgical team for septic 2-stage revision surgeries during the entire episode-of-care "reimbursement window" and compared that time to allowable reimbursement amounts.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and December 2020 all unilateral septic 2-stage rTHA and rTKA procedures performed by a single surgeon at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Time dedicated to planned work was calculated over each episode of care, from surgery scheduling to 90 days postoperatively. Impromptu patient inquiries and treatments after discharge, but within the episode of care, involving the surgeon/surgeon team constituted unplanned work. Planned and unplanned work minutes were summed and divided by the number of patients reviewed to obtain average minutes of work per patient.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight hips and 64 knees were included. For 2-stage rTHA and rTKA the average time per patient for planned care was 1728 and 1716 minutes and for unplanned care was 339 and 237 minutes. Compared to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' allowable reimbursement times, an additional 799 and 887 minutes of uncompensated time was required to care for 2-stage rTHA and rTKA patients.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage revision procedures are substantially more complex than primary procedures. Financially disincentivizing surgeons to care for these patients reduces access to care when high-quality care is most needed. These findings support increasing the allowable times for 2-stage septic revision cases.

High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed.

RESULTS

At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure.

CONCLUSION

Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386-393.

The use of cell salvage during second-stage reimplantation for the treatment of chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Given the possibility of inadvertent bacterial contamination of salvaged blood, the use of cell salvage is relatively contraindicated in cases of reimplantation for chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there are no published data supporting this assertion. The purpose of the current study was to compare the reinfection rate and rate of postoperative allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) in second-stage reimplantation for PJI with or without intraoperative cell salvage reinfusion.

Materials and methods

We identified 125 patients who underwent two-stage exchange for chronic hip PJI between November 2012 and April 2019. The groups of patients who had (n = 61) and had not (n = 64) received intraoperative cell salvage reinfusion were compared with respect to the curative infection-free rate. Moreover, we compared the need for postoperative ABT and identified independent factors associated with ABT using multiple regression analysis.

Results

The log-rank survival curve with an endpoint of infection eradication failure was not significantly different between the cell salvage group (98.4%, 95% CI 95.3–99.9%) and the control group (95.3%, 95% CI 90.2–99.9%) at one year (log rank, P = .330). The rates of postoperative ABT in the cell salvage group were significantly lower than those in the control group (11.5% vs 26.6%, P = .041). In multivariable models, patient age, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin level, and intraoperative cell salvage were independent predictors of ABT exposure (P < .05).

Conclusions

The use of cell salvage during reimplantation in two-stage exchange for chronic hip PJI did not appear to increase the reinfection rate, while it significantly reduced the rate of postoperative allogeneic red blood transfusion. Greater age, lower BMI, lower preoperative hemoglobin, and non-intraoperative cell salvage reinfusion were associated with higher rate of allogeneic red blood transfusion.

What is the appropriate extended duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after two-stage revision for chronic PJI?

Aims

To explore the effect of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

This study involved a retrospective collection of patients who underwent two-stage revision for chronic PJI and continued to use extended antibiotic prophylaxis in two regional medical centres from January 2010 to June 2018. The patients were divided into a short (≤ one month) or a long (> one month) course of treatment based on the duration of antibiotics following stage II reimplantation. The difference in the infection control rate between the two groups was compared, and prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed.

Results

A total of 105 patients with chronic PJI were enrolled: 64 patients in the short course group and 41 patients in the long course group. For 99 of the patients, the infection was under control during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after two-stage revision. For the short course group, the mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after stage II reimplantation was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and the infection control rate was 95.3%; for the long course group these were 45.02 days (SD 15.03) and 92.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection control rates between the two groups (p = 0.676). Cox regression analysis found that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection (p = 0.015) was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence.

Conclusion

After stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI, extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):790–796.

Management of Foreign Organic Material Identified During Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report

CASE

A 54-year-old man underwent total knee arthroplasty, during which organic plant material was incidentally discovered within the prepatellar bursa. A combination of high-dose antibiotic-loaded bone cement to implant primary components and an extended course of postoperative antibiotics were used to lower the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). One year after operation he remains infection-free with improved mobility and decreased pain.

CONCLUSION

Presented with the risk of unexpected tissue contamination, the team used both high-dose antibiotic cement and a course of postoperative antibiotic therapy. This infection prevention strategy is a reasonable course of action in patients at high risk for primary PJI.

Complications and Outcomes Associated With a Novel, Prefabricated, Articulating Spacer for Two-Stage Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment

BACKGROUND

Various prefabricated articulating spacer options have been described for 2-stage treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection, but their results are poorly generalizable between designs due to differing antibiotic and material properties. This study reports outcomes for a novel, prefabricated, commercially available cement-on-cement articulating spacer.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data for patients undergoing treatment with a prefabricated articulating cement spacer was performed. Outcomes were categorized as spacer complications, reimplantation rates, function, reinfection, and mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-six knees and 28 hips were analyzed. Spacer survival free of fracture, instability, or other implant-related complication until reimplantation was 100%. There were no bony or spacer fractures during the interstage or reimplantation. Reimplantation occurred in 84.6% of resected joints. Following spacer implantation, all but 1 patient was allowed to bear weight. The proportion of patients requiring an assistive device decreased from 67% prior to resection to 31% following reimplantation. Knee flexion improved from an average of 88.1° before resection to 111.9° following reimplantation. Eighty-seven percent of cases were infection free at mean follow-up of 16.6 ± 10.4 months.

CONCLUSION

Study results demonstrate that this novel, prefabricated, articulating antibiotic spacer is safe, allows for good interstage function, and results in reasonable infection eradication rates at early term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III.

The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: Extended Oral Antibiotics Prevent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in High-Risk Cases: 3855 Patients With 1-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Surgical and host factors predispose patients to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While surgical factors are modifiable, host factors can be challenging, and there are limited data demonstrating that preoperative patient optimization decreases risk of PJI. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the one-year infection rate in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 3855 consecutive primary THAs and TKAs performed between 2011 and 2019 at a suburban academic hospital with modern perioperative and infection-prevention protocols were retrospectively reviewed. Beginning in January 2015, a 7-day oral antibiotic prophylaxis protocol was implemented after discharge for patients at high risk for PJI. The percentage of high-risk patients diagnosed with PJI within 1 year was compared between groups that did and did not receive extended antibiotic prophylaxis. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed, with P ≤ .05 denoting statistical significance.

RESULTS

Overall 1-year infection rates were 2.26% and 0.85% after THA and TKA, respectively. High-risk patients with extended antibiotic prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of PJI than high-risk patients without extended antibiotic prophylaxis (0.89% vs 2.64%, respectively; P < .001). There was no difference in the infection rate between high-risk patients who received antibiotics and low-risk patients (0.89% vs 1.29%, respectively; P = .348) with numbers available.

CONCLUSION

Extended postoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis for 7 days led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in 1-year infection rates of patients at high risk for infection. In fact, the PJI rate in high-risk patients who received antibiotics was less than the rate seen in low-risk patients. Thus, extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis may be a simple measure to effectively counteract poor host factors. Moreover, the findings of this study may mitigate the incentive to select healthier patients in outcome-based reimbursement models. Further study with a multicenter randomized control trial is needed to further validate this protocol.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level III.

The Fragility of Statistically Significant Findings From Randomized Controlled Trials in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The Fragility Index (FI) is a method for evaluating the robustness of statistically significant findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) beyond the P value in trials with dichotomous outcomes. The FI is defined as the number of patients in one arm of a trial that would have to have a different outcome to change the results of the trial from statistically significant to nonsignificant. This review assessed the FI in arthroplasty RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs related to primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) from 2010 to 2020. Trials with a statistically significant dichotomous primary outcome were included. The FI was calculated using Fisher's exact test to determine how many events would need to be reversed to change a study from statistically significant to nonsignificant.

RESULTS

A total of 34 RCTs were included. The median sample size was 103 patients (range 24-791). The median FI was 1 (range 0-45), meaning that reversing the outcome of just one patient in either treatment group of each trial would change it from a significant to a nonsignificant result.

CONCLUSION

Hip and knee arthroplasty RCTs with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes in TJA are fragile. The median FI in TJA is lower than the FI in any of the other previously reported orthopedic subspecialties. Fragility is another reason to be cautious when conducting or interpreting small trials, and to continue to strive toward large trials to answer important questions in TJA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Positive frozen section during reimplantation increases the risk of treatment failure in two-stage exchange arthroplasty even in patients with normal ESR and CRP

AIMS

It can be extremely challenging to determine whether to perform reimplantation in patients who have contradictory serum inflammatory markers and frozen section results. We investigated whether patients with a positive frozen section at reimplantation were at a higher risk of reinfection despite normal ESR and CRP.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 163 consecutive patients with periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) who had normal ESR and CRP results pre-reimplantation in our hospital from 2014 to 2018. Of these patients, 26 had positive frozen sections at reimplantation. The minimum follow-up time was two years unless reinfection occurred within this period. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association between positive frozen sections and treatment failure.

RESULTS

Treatment failure occurred in eight (30.77%) of the 26 PJI patients with positive frozen sections at reimplantation, compared with 13 (9.49%) of 137 patients with negative results. In the multivariate analysis, positive frozen section increased the risk of failure (odds ratio 4.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 13.45). The mean number of months to reinfection was lower in the positive frozen section group than in the control group (p = 0.041). While there were nine (34.62%) patients with positive frozen section and 25 (18.25%) patients with negative frozen section who had prolonged antibiotic use (p = 0.042), the mean duration of antibiotic use was comparable in two groups. Synovial white blood cell count (p = 0.137) and polymorphonuclear leucocyte percentage (p = 0.454) were not associated with treatment failure in logistic regression model.

CONCLUSION

Positive frozen section at reimplantation was independently associated with subsequent failure and earlier reinfection, despite normal ESR and CRP levels pre-reimplantation. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of treatment failure in patients with positive frozen sections and carefully consider benefits of reimplantation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):916-922.

Irrigation and Debridement with Chronic Antibiotic Suppression Is as Effective as 2-Stage Exchange in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Extensive Instrumentation

BACKGROUND

Extraction of implants because of periprosthetic infection (PJI) following complex revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) with extensive instrumentation is a daunting undertaking for surgeon and patient alike. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether infections following complex rTKA are better treated with 2-stage exchange or irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular component exchange and antibiotic suppression in terms of infection control, reoperation, and function.

METHODS

We reviewed rTKAs that had been performed for the treatment of PJI from 2005 to 2016. Extensive instrumentation was defined as the presence ≥1 of the following: metaphyseal cones/sleeves, distal femoral replacement, periprosthetic fracture instrumentation, or fully cemented stems measuring >75 mm. Cases were categorized according to the initial treatment (I&D with antibiotic suppression or initiation of 2-stage exchange).

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients with PJI and extensive instrumentation were identified: 56 patients who were managed with I&D with suppression and 31 who were managed with the initiation of 2-stage exchange. The rate of success (defined as no reoperation for infection) was similar for the 2 groups (62.5% the I&D group compared with 67.7% for the 2-stage group; p = 0.62). The rate of mortality was also similar (39.3% for the I&D group compared with 38.7% for the 2-stage group; p = 0.96). Of the 31 patients in the 2-stage group, 18 (58.1%) underwent reimplantation with a revision replacement. Of those 18 patients, 13 were still infection-free at the time of the most recent follow-up; however, when the analysis was expanded to all 31 patients in the 2-stage group, only 13 (41.9%) both had a successful reimplantation and did not require additional surgery for infection. Nine (29.0%) of the 31 patients in the 2-stage group never underwent the second stage, and 4 (12.9%) of the 31 required arthrodesis at the second stage. In contrast, 35 (62.5%) of the 56 patients in the I&D group were successfully managed, without additional surgery for the treatment of infection. At the time of the latest follow-up (mean, 3.2 years; range, 2 to 13 years), more patients in the I&D group were ambulatory (76.8% in the I&D group compared with 54.8% in the 2-stage group; p = 0.05) and maintained a functional bending knee joint (85.7% in the I&D group compared with 45.2% in the 2-stage group; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of periprosthetic infection of rTKA with extensive instrumentation, I&D with chronic antibiotic suppression was as effective as 2-stage exchange in terms of preventing reoperation for infection and was more effective in terms of maintaining function. These data apply to rTKA with extensive periarticular instrumentation and should not be extrapolated to primary or simple revision implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Aseptic Reoperations Within 1 Year of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Markedly Increase the Risk of Later Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Despite the high rate of success of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), some patients are candidates for early aseptic reoperation. The goal of this study is to evaluate the risk of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients treated with an aseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our total joint registry compared 249 primary TKAs requiring an aseptic reoperation within 1 year following index arthroplasty to a control group of 17,867 TKAs not requiring reoperation within 1 year. Patients were divided into groups based on time from index TKA: (1) 90 days or less (114 TKAs) and (2) 91 to 365 days (135 TKAs). Mean age was 68 years with 57% female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperatively, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days subsequently had a 9% PJI rate, while patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation between 91 and 365 days subsequently had a 3% PJI rate. The control group had a 0.4% PJI rate. Compared to the control group, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days had an elevated risk of PJI (hazard ratio, 9; P < .0001), as did patients who had a reoperation between 91 and 365 days (hazard ratio, 4; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Aseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA was associated with a notably increased risk of subsequent PJI.

How I do it - Second stage revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Infection is a potentially devastating complication following primary total knee arthroplasty, and the traditional gold-standard treatment for chronic prosthetic joint infection has been in the form of a two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty. This involves a first stage - removal of all implants and infected material, with implantation of a temporary spacer - followed by a second stage which includes reimplantation with a definitive prosthesis.

INDICATIONS

Although the outcomes of single-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty surgeries are similar, there are certain indications such as atypical or more virulent organisms, patient factors and soft tissue factors that would favour a two-stage approach.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The second stage revision procedure consists of explantation of the spacer with a debridement and synovectomy. Further samples are sent for microbiological analysis. Once the surgical field is clean and lavaged, the definitive prosthesis is implanted.

CONCLUSIONS

A second stage revision total knee arthroplasty is a reliable procedure for the treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection. There is a significant re-revision rate, predominantly due to recurrent deep infection.

Explantation, Followed by Serial Debridement Without Antibiotic Spacers and Subsequent Revision With Cementless Components, Is Associated With High Remission Rates and Low Mortality in Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

In difficult-to-treat cases, it is necessary to add debridement steps in prosthesis-free interval of 2-stage exchange. We aimed to analyze the functional and clinical outcome of patients treated with a multistage exchange of total hip arthroplasty without the use of spacers, rather only cementless implants.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2018, 84 patients (mean age: 67.3 [39-90] years) suffering chronic late-onset periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) were treated using a multistage prosthesis exchange without spacers. The mean follow-up was 70 ± 45.3 [14-210] months. The treatment included prosthesis exchange and at least 1 additional revision step before a reimplantation, owing to ongoing acute infection in the prosthesis-free interval. High-efficiency antimicrobial therapy was administered in between, which was discontinued after cementless revision implantation.

RESULTS

The mean number of revisions between explantation and implantation was 2.6 (1-9). The most common microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis (53.6%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus (16.7%) and Cutibacterium acnes (11.9%). The bacterial load was more than one bacterium per patient in 38% of cases. All patients could be treated using a cementless implant. PJI remission was achieved in 92% of cases. Overall, 9 prostheses (11%) were replaced because of an ongoing PJI or fracture. The mean modified Harrison Hip Score was 63.4 (22-88) points. No patient died.

CONCLUSION

Multistage total hip arthroplasty exchange showed high remission rates and low mortality in difficult-to-treat cases. Spacer-free and multistage treatment had no negative effect on the success rate or functional outcome, consistent with the results of published 2-stage exchange studies. Implantation of an uncemented press-fit prosthesis was possible in all patients with no elevated periprosthetic fracture rate.