Preliminary Results After Changing From Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty Protocol Using Cementless Arthroplasty for Chronic Infected Hip Replacements

Comparison of Single- Versus Two-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be a complex and distressing complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Both one-stage and two-stage revisions are the main options for treating chronic PJI of the knee; however, the best treatment option continues to be debated. We aimed to compare the rate of success by comparing the risk of re-infection between the two treatment options.

METHODS

Patients who underwent one-stage from 2009 to 2014 or two-stage revision from 2015 to 2020 for treatment of PJI of the knee were included. The Delphi-based consensus criteria were used to classify infections. The primary outcome was recurrent infection. Time from the index revision surgery to the return to the operating room for infectious reasons and non-infectious reasons was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients underwent knee revision for PJI, in which 46 (69.7%) underwent one-stage and 20 (30.3%) underwent two-stage revision. Mean age (P = 0.57) and body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.33) were similar between the groups. The rate of no recurrence of infection was 89.1% in the one-stage group and 65.0% in the two-stage group (P = 0.034) at the mean follow-up time of 5.4 years (range, 2.2 to 10.3). The one-stage group was significantly more likely to have decreased time between the revision for re-infection (P = 0.012). There were no significant differences in rates of postoperative deep vein thrombosis, acute renal failure, long-term antibiotic use, or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that one-stage revision for treatment of PJI of the knee is at least as effective as two-stage revision. To our knowledge, this is the largest single-surgeon, single-protocol series of consecutive cases reported to date, with limited exclusion criteria.

One-Stage Revision Using Cementless Reconstruction for Chronically Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Average of 11 Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Although interest in one-stage revision has increased in recent years, long-term follow-up reports remain notably scarce. This study aimed to present the 11-year outcomes of cementless one-stage revision for chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA), including infection-free survivorship, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and complications.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis conducted between 2010 and 2016 included 126 patients who had chronically infected THA and underwent one-stage revision using cementless reconstruction. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess postoperative survival, while Cox regression analysis identified risk factors for reinfection. Updated postoperative imaging, Harris Hip Scores, and complications were recorded. Successful infection treatment was defined as the absence of clinical symptoms of infection during follow-up.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 11 years (range, eight to 14), 16 patients experienced infection recurrence, resulting in a 10-year infection-free survival rate of 85.4%. Cox regression analysis identified age ≥ 65 years (HR [hazard ratio] 3.0, 95% CI [confidence interval] 1.2 to 8.6; P = 0.02) and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 8.1; P = 0.03) as significant risk factors for reinfection. The presence of a sinus tract, prolonged operative time, culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, methicillin-resistant pathogen infection, and prior surgery for infection were not associated with recurrence. Among the patients, two experienced recurrent dislocations and one had aseptic loosening, leading to a 10-year aseptic rerevision-free survival rate of 97.0%. The mean postoperative Harris Hip Scores at the latest follow-up was 77.9 points (range, 68.5 to 86.7; P < 0.001). Complications occurred in 26 patients (23.4%), and the 10-year reoperation-free survival rate was 78.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

A one-stage revision using cementless reconstruction for infected THA demonstrated a favorable infection control rate and sustained satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, further studies with higher-level evidence are needed to validate these findings.

Prognostic Implications of Unexpected Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Two-Stage Knee Arthroplasty Reimplantations: A Minimum Five-Year Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical challenge of unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPICs) persists in 2-stage resection arthroplasty for managing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total knee arthroplasty.(TKA). This study aimed to investigate the incidence of UPICs during the definitive reimplantation phase of 2-stage resection arthroplasty of the knee and to assess both the infection-free and revision-free survivorship of the implanted prosthesis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 450 2-stage resection arthroplasties of primary knee prostheses performed between January 2012 and April 2017. Patients were excluded if they: (1) underwent three or more staged resections, (2) had ambiguous clinical documentation or deviated from the 2-stage protocol, or (3) underwent revision arthroplasty prior to the PJI. Additionally, patients presumed aseptic before the second-stage reimplantation were excluded if they lacked joint aspiration or met the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI before implantation.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 300 patients were analyzed. Among them, 14% had UPIC during the second-stage reimplantation. The follow-up time was 2,316 (range, 1,888 to 3,737) days and 2,531 (range, 1,947 to 3,349) days for UPIC and negative intraoperative culture (NIC) groups, respectively. Rerevision due to subsequent PJI occurred in 26.2% of UPIC patients and 15.1% of NIC patients. The 2-year infection-free survival rates for the NIC, one UPIC, and ≥ two UPIC cohorts were 99.5, 98.2, and 94.3%, respectively, while the 5-year survival rates were 92.1, 91.1, and 54.3%, respectively. The unfavorable survivorship was significantly different in multiple UPIC cases (P < 0.001). Multiple UPICs with pathogens consistent with the first-stage findings were strongly associated with the risk of reinfection (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An UPIC was identified in 14% of second-stage reimplantations. Patients who had multiple UPICs demonstrated truncated survivorship and suboptimal outcomes relative to the NIC and single UPIC cohorts, especially with pathogen consistency to the first-stage surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate.

RESULTS

128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure.

INTERPRETATION

There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study of Periprosthetic Hip Infection Treated by one-stage Method Including Cases With Bone Graft Reconstruction

Purpose:

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that can affect hip arthroplasty. Its treatment is extremely difficult, and issues regarding the optimal treatment remain unanswered. This study intended to show the effectiveness of the one-stage treatment of PJI.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective observational cohort study performed from July 2014- August 2018. All patients with suspected PJI were included. Major and minor criteria developed by the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (ICPJI) was used to define infection. Laboratory tests and image exams were performed, and all patients were followed for at least 2 years.

Outcomes:

Success rate (2018 ICPJI definition to success) in treatment of PJI using one-stage revision method. Clinical and functional outcomes defined by Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Results:

Thirty-one patients were screened and 18 analyzed. 69.85 ± 9.76 years was the mean age. Mean follow-up time was 63.84 ± 18.55 months. Ten patients had acetabular defects and required bone graft reconstruction. Sixteen patients were classified as Tier 1, 1 as Tier 3D, and as 1 Tier 3E. Almost 90% of patients submitted to one-stage revision with acetabulum graft reconstruction were free of infection. The overall infection survival rate was 78.31±6.34 months. Candida albicans and sinus tract were statistically significant in univariate Cox’s analysis. The predictor of one-stage revision surgery failure that remained final Cox’s regression model was C. albicans (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.47).

Conclusion:

Treatment through one-stage revision surgery associated with 6 months of antimicrobial is a viable option with acceptable results even when bone graft reconstruction is necessary. C. albicans was a strong predictor of failure in this cohort.

Experiences during Switching from Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection

The objective of this study was to evaluate our preliminary results after changing our surgical strategy from 2-stage revision arthroplasty to 1-stage revision arthroplasty for patients with chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection. We conducted a prospective study of knee arthroplasty patients that had been diagnosed with chronic infection and treated using a 1-stage revision regardless of the traditional criteria applied for indication thereof. We evaluated two main variables: infection control and economic costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined by using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated as average costs in USD, as described by Srivastava (2019), for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions. Eighteen patients were included in the study, and infection was controlled in 17 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital from these 18 patients amounted to USD 291,152. This clinical success has led to major changes in how our hospital approaches the treatment of chronically infected knee replacements, in addition to substantial economic advantages for the hospital.

[Septic revision arthroplasty: how to confirm diagnosis, plan surgery and manage follow-up treatment]

BACKGROUND

Septic revision arthroplasty represents an interdisciplinary challenge in terms of diagnosis as well as surgical and follow-up treatment.

DIAGNOSIS

The implementation of a standardized diagnostic algorithm including anamnesis, clinic, imaging, blood sampling and joint aspiration is essential. Depending on the duration of the symptoms acute (< 3 weeks) and chronic (> 3 weeks) infections are distinguished.

THERAPY

While acute infections show an immature biofilm and can usually be addressed surgically via debridement and changing the mobile parts, chronic infections almost always require a complete change of the implant. This can be done in one or two stages, depending on the general condition of the patient, the pathogen, its resistances as well as the wound conditions. The surgical revision is always followed by a resistance-based antibiotic treatment.

What is the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotics following single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection? A systematic review

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 1 of the most challenging potential complications following total joint arthroplasty. Several surgical treatment strategies have been proposed for management of this diagnosis. The single-stage approach has been gaining popularity in contemporary literature. 1 fundamental aspect in the management of hip PJI is the administration of antibiotics, usually intravenously immediately after surgery, followed by a period of oral antibiotics. The optimal duration of the period of antibiotic therapy is undecided. The aim of this paper is to examine the trend in intravenous antibiotic use over the last 18 years and examine the influence this has had on the results of single-stage revision over that time period.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a leading cause of revision arthroplasty. Considerable controversy still exists whether single- or two-stage exchange is the better approach for patients with chronic PJI. Historically, single-stage exchange arthroplasty was thought to have an unacceptably high risk of reinfection compared with two-stage exchange but recent studies have demonstrated that this may not be the case. To be considered for single-stage exchange, patients should meet certain criteria including a preoperatively identified nonvirulent pathogen in an immunocompetent host with an uncompromised soft tissue envelope. It is unclear what proportion of patients with chronic PJI actually meet these criteria. Additionally, patients who meet the criteria for single-stage exchange are selected because, in principle, they may be more likely to be able to overcome the infection, but it is unknown what the reinfection risk is in patients undergoing two-stage exchange who might have met selection criteria for single-stage exchange.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of patients with chronic PJI treated at our institution met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange arthroplasty? (2) Is the risk of persistent or recurrent infection lower for patients treated with two-stage exchange who met International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange than it is among those who did not meet those inclusion criteria?

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2016, one referral center treated 120 patients with chronic PJI as determined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. During this time, we used single-stage exchange only rarely in patients with chronic PJI (3%; four of 120), and only in oncologic patients with mega-prosthesis implants; 7% (eight of 120) underwent other procedures (resection arthroplasty or arthrodesis). Of the remaining 108, 16% (17) were lost to follow-up; the remaining 91 were evaluated in this retrospective study. To answer our first question, we applied the International Consensus Meeting indications for single-stage exchange, which were a known nonvirulent preoperative organism, an immunocompetent host, and a healthy soft-tissue envelope without a sinus tract; we then calculated the percentage of patients who would have met those criteria. To answer our second question, we compared those who would and would not have met those criteria in terms of the proportion who were determined to be infection-free at 2 years using the MSIS criteria.

RESULTS

Only 19% (20 of 108) of patients met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange. With the numbers available, there was no difference between those who met and did not meet those criteria in terms of the proportion of patients who had persistent or recurrent infection 2 years after treatment (three of 15 versus 32% [24 of 76]; p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that only a small proportion of patients who presented with chronic PJI to a referral center would have been suitable for single-stage direct exchange; with the numbers available, we found no difference in the reinfection risk after two-stage revision in those patients compared with those who would not have met those criteria. Consequently, it is possible that a small proportion of patients may benefit from single-stage exchange, but our small sample size may have missed important differences in reinfection risk, and so our findings on that question must be considered preliminary. Larger studies randomizing patients who meet single-stage criteria to either single- or two-stage exchange will better elucidate the true reinfection risk in this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Single vs 2-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, accounting for a projected 10,000 revision surgeries per year by 2030. Chronic PJI is complicated by the presence of bacterial biofilm, requiring removal of components, thorough debridement, and administration of antibiotics for effective eradication. Chronic PJI is currently managed with single-stage or 2-stage revision surgery. To date, there are no randomized, prospective studies available evaluating eradication rates and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques. In this review, both treatment options are described with the most current literature to guide effective surgical decision-making that is cost-effective while decreasing patient morbidity.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Infection with Silver-Doped Implants Based on Two-Dimensionally Ordered Linear Chain Carbon

Relevance. Formation of pan-resistance microorganisms, microbial biofilms on implants and recurrent infection rate stimulate the search for optimal prosthesis materials for treatment of periprosthetic infection (PJI). Purpose of the study — to compare the efficiency of two stage PJI treatment with simultaneous implantation of a spacer in combination with implants with silver-doped coatings based on two-dimensionally ordered linear chain carbon (TDOLCC+Ag) during the first stage and the conventional revision with a spacer only. Materials and methods. The study included 72 patients with PJI of the knee (n = 42) and hip (n = 30) joints. Control group (conventional revision) consisted of 35 patients and the main group (TDOLCC+Ag coated implant incorporated in a spacer) — 37 patients. Mean age of the patients was 61 years. Temporary components were replaced by the final components during revision at the second stage. Evaluation methods: clinical, X-ray, laboratory, microbiological and follow up history. Results. Inflammation markers and synovial fluid cytosis in the groups at the first revision stage featured equal high base values. During the second stage leucocyte count and cytosis reached normal values, ESR decreased twofold in both groups, CRP decreased five times in the main group. Throat and nasal swabs demonstrated growth of Staphylococcus aureus at 24,3-32,4% in both groups. The leading inducer of PJI was staphylococcal flora with MRSA share of 7,1% and MRSE — from 62,5 to 66,7%. End-points of evaluating treatment outcomes were revision spacer implantation at the second stage of sanation and recurrent PJI. Control group featured implantation of more revision spacers (5) as compared to the main group (1) after the treatment. Two recurrent PJIs were reported for the control group in 11 months while no recurrent infection was reported for the main group. Conclusion. The study demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the outcomes of PJI treatment by spacers with implants coated by TDOLCC+Ag as compared to the conventional treatment option.

Is it safe to do a single-stage implant exit and primary hip replacement? clinical and microbiological profiling

BACKGROUND

A single-stage implant revision for failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures is performed only when there is no evidence of infection. Else, a two-staged revision is preferred - where the definitive revision surgery is done a few months after the implant exit. This study aims to audit the safety and incidence of culture positivity in single-stage revisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty one of 284 patients that presented over the last 12 years for implant exchange of the hip, had a single stage revision surgery for failed fixation of a fracture of the hip, as there was no obvious evidence of infection at the time of implant exit.

RESULTS

Micro-organisms were grown in 51% of the 41 hips. 76% were gram positive, of which 63% were Coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS). 50% of CoNS and 75% of S. aureus were resistant to oxacillin, but susceptible to Vancomycin. Of the gram negative organisms, 2 (Enterobacter sp) were resistant to carbapenam, while others were susceptible. Preoperative ESR and CRP, individually, had low specificity - 50% for ESR >30mm at 1 hour and 62% for CRP>10. The combined use of ESR > 30mm and CRP>10 increased the specificity to 90%. 12% of the patients had immediate postoperative complications that required a wash out in theatre. The long term clinical follow up of these patients is limited.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that implant exit and simultaneous arthroplasty for failed fracture fixation should be done with caution due to the high possibility of infection. It may be prudent to opt for a 2 stage revision.

Single-stage treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty with cementless reconstruction: results in 126 patients with broad inclusion criteria

AIMS

Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (sd 12.7; 20 to 79).

RESULTS

Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment.

CONCLUSION

Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396-402.

Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection

Aims

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI.

Material and Methods

A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions.

Results

The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions.

Conclusion

We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus.