Cement Loaded With High-Dose Gentamicin and Clindamycin Reduces the Risk of Subsequent Infection After One-Stage Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Exchange for Periprosthetic Infection: A Preliminary Study

One-stage exchange strategy with extensive debridement for chronic periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is associated with a low relapse rate in non-selected patients: a prospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

This prospective clinical cohort was undertaken to determine the long-term risks of reinfection and all-cause aseptic failure after 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasties (TKA) in a large series of consecutive patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following TKA.

HYPOTHESIS

One-stage exchange for chronic PJI is an effective strategy, even in a non-selected population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Non-selected patients (152 with 154 PJI) undergoing 1-stage-exchange TKA for PJI (January 2003-August 2015) were prospectively included and monitored for ≥2 years. PJI following TKA satisfying Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria were documented by microbiological culture results of preoperative joint aspirates and/or intraoperative samples. The cumulative incidences of total reinfections (i.e., relapses or new infections) and aseptic revisions were assessed. The mean follow-up (FU) duration was 7.5 years post-reimplantation.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, 35 knees had developed reinfections: 7 relapses and 28 new infections, with respective 14-year cumulative incidences of 4.8% and 20.6%. The 2-, 5- and 14-year cumulative total reinfection incidences were 12.3%, 21.3% and 24.3%, respectively. Respective 2-, 5-, 10- and 14-year aseptic component-revision incidences were 0.7%, 3.2%, 5.4% and 13.4%. Multivariate analysis retained male sex (HR 3.27, p < 0.01) and preoperative atrial fibrillation (HR 3.03; p = 0.01) as being significantly associated with greater risk of reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage-exchange TKA with aggressive debridement for chronic PJI is apparently a valid strategy, even for non-selected patients. It was associated with a low relapse rate, prevented morbidity and avoided economic social costs of 2-stage exchange. New infections with a different microorganism were observed more frequently and occurred even after years of FU.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; Therapeutic.

What Is the Role of Local Antimicrobial Protection for One-Stage Revision for Peri-Prosthetic Hip Infection?

The aim of this review is to investigate the effective role of local antimicrobial protection for one-stage cemented and cementless hip revision surgery. Twelve studies reporting the results of cemented single-stage procedures with a minimum two-year follow-up were reviewed. When pooling together the data, no infection recurrence was observed on average in 83.3% of the patients (a range of 75.0% to 100%). Only two papers included patients treated without the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement, with an average infection control of 95.9% in a total of 195 patients. This figure appears to be better than the 80.7% infection control obtained by pooling together all the remaining studies. Concerning cementless one-stage revision, a total of 17 studies, reporting on 521 patients, showed an average of 90.0% (range 56.8% to 100%) no infection recurrence at a minimum two-year follow-up. No comparative study investigated cementless revision with or without local antibacterial protection. The pooled data showed an average infection control of 86.7%, without the application of local antibacterials, compared to 90.1% to 100% with local antimicrobial protection, depending on the technology used. No statistical difference could be found, either considering local antibacterial strategies alone or pooled together. No side effects had been reported by any local antibacterial technique. Local antibacterial protection for one-stage hip revision surgery, although safe and largely performed in the clinical setting, appears to still rely mainly on experts' opinions with no prospective or comparative trial, hence no definitive conclusion can be drawn concerning its effective role in one-stage hip revision surgery.

Predicting periprosthetic joint infection: external validation of preoperative prediction models

Introduction: Prediction models for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are gaining interest due to their potential to improve clinical decision-making. However, their external validity across various settings remains uncertain. This study aimed to externally validate promising preoperative PJI prediction models in a recent multinational European cohort. Methods: Three preoperative PJI prediction models - by Tan et al. (2018), Del Toro et al. (2019), and Bülow et al. (2022) - that have previously demonstrated high levels of accuracy were selected for validation. A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at centers in the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain between January 2020 and December 2021 was conducted. Patient characteristics were compared between our cohort and those used to develop the models. Performance was assessed through discrimination and calibration. Results: The study included 2684 patients, 60 of whom developed a PJI (2.2 %). Our cohort differed from the models' original cohorts with respect to demographic variables, procedural variables, and comorbidity prevalence. The overall accuracies of the models, measured with the c  statistic, were 0.72, 0.69, and 0.72 for the Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow models, respectively. Calibration was reasonable, but the PJI risk estimates were most accurate for predicted infection risks below 3 %-4 %. The Tan model overestimated PJI risk above 4 %, whereas the Del Toro model underestimated PJI risk above 3 %. Conclusions: The Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow PJI prediction models were externally validated in this multinational cohort, demonstrating potential for clinical application in identifying high-risk patients and enhancing preoperative counseling and prevention strategies.

Cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin does not reduce the risk of subsequent infection after aseptic total hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a preliminary study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify the prophylactic effect of high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) during revision total hip (rTHA) or knee (rTKA) arthroplasty for aseptic reasons. The hypothesis was that the raw surgical site infection (SSI) rate is lower when this particular cement is used in comparison with cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin during rTHA or rTKA for aseptic reasons.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients undergoing aseptic rTHA or rTKA. Two consecutive cohorts were defined: the first (control group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with gentamicin only was used; the second (study group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin was used. The primary endpoint was the raw SSI rate after 24 months.

RESULTS

The raw SSI rate was 8/145 (6%) in the control group and 13/145 (9%) in the study group (odds ratio 0.62, p = 0.26). There was a significant impact of the presence of any risk factor on the SSI rate (15/100 versus 6/169, odds ratio = 4.25, p = 0.002), but no significant impact of any individual risk factor. No complication or side effect related to ALBC was observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

These results do not support the routine use of gentamicin and clindamycin ALBC for fixation of revision implants after rTHA and rTKA for aseptic reasons.

The Prophylactic Effect of Single vs. Dual Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement against Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in arthroplasties is currently experiencing increased usage. Therefore, single and double antibiotic-loaded bone cements are commercially available and used in orthopedic surgery. The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical use of single compared to dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement for implant fixation after femoral neck fracture. Further infection rates were to be compared in (partial) arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fracture for both treatment options.

METHODS

On the basis of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD), all cases of femoral neck fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty (HA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) with single and dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement, were included into the data analysis. The infection risk was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

In total, 26,845 cases (HA 76.3%-THA: 23.7%) with femoral neck fracture were included. Within recent years, an increasing usage of dual antibiotic-loaded cement in Germany, with a current proportion of 7.30% in arthroplasty procedures for femoral neck fracture treatment, has been observed. In patients treated with HA, the proportion of dual antibiotic-loaded cement was 7.86%, while in those treated with THA, 5.46% of all prostheses were fixated with a two antibiotic component cement. For all arthroplasty procedures using single antibiotic-loaded bone cement after six months 1.8%, after one year 1.9%, and after five years 2.3%, of the cases failed due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), while in the same time period, in cases with dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.5% suffered from infection (p = 0.34). A infection rate of 1.1% after HA with dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement was reported, compared to a 2.1% infection rate whilst using single antibiotic-loaded bone cement after five years (p = 0.098). The number required for treatment when using HA was 91.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement is increasingly used in arthroplasty procedures after femoral neck fractures. It demonstrates a reduction of PJI after HA and seems, therefore, to be a useful method for the prevention of infection, especially in patients with increased risk factors for PJI.

Patients at a high risk of PJI: Can we reduce the incidence of infection using dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement?

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications of orthopedic surgery. However, not all patients are equally at the risk of severe infection. The incidences of PJI vary with the host and surgery-related risk factors. It is now generally accepted that some important medical comorbidities may predispose the patients to a high risk of PJI. Time-consuming and invasive surgical procedures, such as revision arthroplasties, are also associated with a high incidence of PJI, presumably due to the increased risk of surgical site contamination. Effective infection-preventing strategies should begin with identifying and optimizing the patients at a high risk of infection prior to surgery. Optimizing the operating room environment and antibiotic prophylaxis are also essential strategies that help minimize the overall incidence of infection in orthopedic surgery. The ideal antibiotic prophylaxis is still under debate, and discussions have emerged about whether variations or adjustments to the standard protocol are justified in patients at a high risk of infection. This also includes evaluating the possible benefits and risks of using high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement instead of low-dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement in arthroplasty. This review summarizes the evidence showing that the combination of two local antibiotics in bone cement exerts a strong and longer-lasting antimicrobial effect against PJI-associated pathogens. This conclusion is consistent with the preliminary clinical studies showing a low incidence of PJI in high-risk patients undergoing cemented hemiarthroplasty, cemented revision, and primary arthroplasty if dual ALBC is used. These results may encourage clinicians to consolidate this hypothesis in a wider clinical range.

Prophylactic Antibiofilm Activity of Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cements against Gram-Negative Bacteria

Gram-negative bacilli can be responsible for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) even if staphylococci are the main involved pathogens. Gram-negative PJIs (GN-PJI) are considered difficult-to-treat infections due to the increase in antimicrobial resistance and biofilm formation. To minimize the risk of infection in cases of arthroplasties with cemented prosthesis, bone cement can be loaded with antibiotics, especially gentamicin. In this study, we aimed to compare the prophylactic antibiofilm activity of ready-to-use antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBC), already commercialized or new prototypes. We compared ALBCs containing gentamicin alone, gentamicin plus vancomycin, gentamicin plus clindamycin, gentamicin plus Fosfomycin, and fosfomycin alone, to plain cement (no antibiotic); these comparisons were conducted to investigate the biofilm formation of three strains of Escherichia coli, three strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and two strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, with or without specific resistance to gentamicin or fosfomycin. We reported that ALBC containing gentamicin and clindamycin (COPAL G+C) seems to be the most interesting ALBC of our tested panel for the prevention of biofilm formation by gentamicin-susceptible strains, even if clindamycin is not effective against Gram-negative bacteria. However, gentamicin-resistant strains are still a problem, and further studies are needed to identify an antibiotic to associate with gentamicin for an efficient dual ALBC against Gram-negative bacteria.