Hip Disarticulation for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Frequency, Outcome, and Risk Factors

Gluteus maximus transfer for wound closure and treatment of abductor deficiency: a single-plastic surgeon series

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increasing number of total hip arthroplasties (THA), the number and complexity of revision procedures are also on the rise. For complex cases such as periprosthetic joint infections with soft tissue compromise or for abductor muscle deficiencies, one of the treatment options is a gluteus maximus flap (GMF) that covers dead space and can help restore the failed abductor mechanism. The purpose of this study is to investigate the outcomes of a single-plastic surgeon's series of GMF procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review reports on 57 patients (mean follow-up 39.2 months) undergoing GMF transfers for abductor insufficiency on native hip (N = 16), for abductor insufficiency in aseptic revision THA (rTHA) (N = 16), for soft tissue defects in aseptic rTHA (N = 8) and for soft tissue defects in septic rTHA (N = 17) by a single plastic surgeon over a 10-year period. Revision-free survival and complication rates were assessed and risk factors were analyzed with Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

The reoperation-free survival rate of GMF for abductor insufficiency in native hips was 100%. GMF procedures for soft tissue defects in septic rTHA had the lowest cumulative revision-free survival (34.3%) and highest reinfection rates (53.9%). More than three prior surgeries (HR = 2.9, p = 0.020), presence of infection (HR = 3.2, p = 0.010) and resistant organisms (HR = 3.1, p = 0.022) significantly increased the risk of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

GMF is a viable option for addressing abductor insufficiency in native hip joints. However, high revision and complication rates are reported for GMF in septic rTHA. This study highlights the need to clarify the circumstances for which the flap reconstruction will be indicated.

Enough is enough: salvage procedures in severe periprosthetic joint infection

BACKGROUND

In severe cases of periprosthetic joint infection involving negative host-dependent factors, individual-based decisions between a curative therapy vs. salvage procedure are necessary. We aimed to review salvage procedures in severe periprosthetic joint infection cases, where a gold standard of a curative two-stage exchange can no longer be achieved. The options of knee arthrodesis, amputation, persistent fistula (stable drainage), or a debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention procedure in late-onset cases are discussed, including lifelong antibiotic suppression alone.

METHODS

We focused on known salvage procedures for severe periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee, such as amputation, arthrodesis, antibiotic suppression, persistent fistula, and debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in late-stage infections, and the role of local antibiotics. The current literature regarding indications and outcomes was reviewed.

RESULTS

Whereas a successful single-stage above-knee amputation can be a curative effort in younger patients, this is associated with limited outcome in older patients, as the proportion who receive an exoprosthesis leading to independent mobility is low. Therefore, arthrodesis using an intramedullary modular nail is an option for limb salvage, pain reduction, and preservation of quality of life and everyday life mobility, when revision total knee arthroplasty is not an option. Carrying out a persistent fistula using a stable drainage system, as well as a lifelong antibiotic suppression therapy, can be an option, in cases where no other surgery is possible. Active clinical surveillance should then be carried out. A debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention procedure in combination with local degradable antibiotics can be used and is an encouraging new option, but should not been carried out twice.

CONCLUSION

Whereas the gold standard in periprosthetic joint infection treatment of late infections remains the exchange of the prosthesis, salvage procedures should be considered in the cases of reduced life expectancy, several recurrences of the infection, patients having preference and negative host factors. In these cases, the appropriate salvage procedure can temporarily lead to remission of the infection and the possibility to maintain mobility.

The Sinus Tract in Bone and Joint Infection: Minimally Invasive Salvation or Prolonged Suffering? A Multicenter Study

This study assessed the quality of life (QOL) and the functional outcome in daily living in patients with a chronic, treatment-resistant periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or osteomyelitis, living with a natural or iatrogenic sinus tract.

METHODS

A follow-up examination in three national reference centers for septic bone and joint surgery was performed utilizing the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D/A), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, including patients with a chronic sinus tract due to treatment-resistant PJI or osteomyelitis.

RESULTS

In total, 48 patients were included, with a mean follow-up time of 43.1 ± 23.9 months. The mean SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) was 50.2 (±12.3) and the Physical Component Summary (PCS) was 33.9 (±11.3). The mean HADS-D was 6.6 (±4.4) and HADS-A was 6.2 (±4.6), and the VAS was 3.4 (±2.6). The SF-36 MCS showed no significant differences between the study group and the standard population (47.0, p = 0.10), as well as the HADS-A. The PCS in the study population was significantly worse (50.0, p < 0.001), as was the HADS-D.

CONCLUSIONS

A sinus tract represents a treatment option in selected cases with an acceptable QOL. The treatment should be considered for multimorbid patients with a high perioperative risk or if the bone or soft tissue quality prevents surgery.

Diagnosis and management of infected arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreadful complications after THA and TKA. Though prevention is of utmost importance in PJI management, the last decade has seen many remarkable developments in PJI diagnosis, including the introduction of several standardized PJI diagnostic definitions and biomarkers. Depending on the specific clinical situation, a myriad of treatment options for PJI are offered. Our review aims to summarize the pertinent information on PJI diagnosis and synthesize literature on the different treatment methods currently used in clinical practice. One of the most accepted PJI diagnostic definitions was developed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2011, later modified in the 2013 International Consensus Meeting (ICM). After promising results from studies, alpha-defensins and D-dimer were recently incorporated into the 2018 ICM PJI definition. The management choices for PJI include irrigation and debridement (DAIR), one-stage exchange arthroplasty, or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, to name a few. While two-stage revision has traditionally been the treatment of choice in the United States, there has been a growing body of evidence framing one-stage revision as a comparable choice. One-stage revision should be offered in patients meeting strict selection criteria: no sinus tract, proper soft tissue available for wound closure, appropriate bone stock, a favorable identifiable organism with encouraging antibiotic sensitivities (for cement and oral suppression later), and robust immunological status. DAIR can be considered in case of early infections with sensitive infecting organisms. Patients with multiple unsuccessful revisions or those who refuse further surgical intervention for PJI can be offered antibiotic suppression. If nothing seems to work, salvage procedures (resection arthroplasty and arthrodesis) are available as a last resort. Further research is encouraged to improve on diagnostic capabilities and develop evidence on the best treatment of choice for PJI.