Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection

The Mark Coventry Award: PhotothermAA Gel Combined With Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Significantly Decreases Implant Biofilm Burden and Soft-Tissue Infection in a Rabbit Model of Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of total joint arthroplasty. The underlying pathogenesis often involves the formation of bacterial biofilm that protects the pathogen from both host immune responses and antibiotics. The gold standard treatment requires implant removal, a procedure that carries associated morbidity and mortality risks. Strategies to preserve the implant while treating PJI are desperately needed. Our group has developed an anti-biofilm treatment, PhotothermAA gel, which has shown complete eradication of 2-week-old mature biofilm in vitro. In this study, we tested the anti-biofilm efficacy and safety of PhotothermAA in vivo when combined with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in a rabbit model of knee PJI.

METHODS

New Zealand white rabbits (n = 21) underwent knee joint arthrotomy, titanium tibial implant insertion, and inoculation with Xen36 (bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus) after capsule closure. At 2 weeks, rabbits underwent sham surgery (n = 6), DAIR (n = 6), or PhotothermAA with DAIR (n = 9) and were sacrificed 2 weeks later to measure implant biofilm burden, soft-tissue infection, and tissue necrosis.

RESULTS

The combination of anti-biofilm PhotothermAA with DAIR significantly decreased implant biofilm coverage via scanning electron microscopy compared to DAIR alone (1.8 versus 81.0%; P < .0001). Periprosthetic soft-tissue cultures were significantly decreased in the PhotothermAA with DAIR treatment group (log reduction: Sham 1.6, DAIR 2.0, combination 5.6; P < .0001). Treatment-associated necrosis was absent via gross histology of tissue adjacent to the treatment area (P = .715).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an anti-biofilm solution like PhotothermAA as a supplement to current treatments that allow implant retention may prove useful in PJI treatment.

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.

Periprosthetic joint infection and immunity: Current understanding of host-microbe interplay

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of total joint arthroplasty. Even with current treatments, failure rates are unacceptably high with a 5-year mortality rate of 26%. Majority of the literature in the field has focused on development of better biomarkers for diagnostics and treatment strategies including innovate antibiotic delivery systems, antibiofilm agents, and bacteriophages. Nevertheless, the role of the immune system, our first line of defense during PJI, is not well understood. Evidence of infection in PJI patients is found within circulation, synovial fluid, and tissue and include numerous cytokines, metabolites, antimicrobial peptides, and soluble receptors that are part of the PJI diagnosis workup. Macrophages, neutrophils, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are initially recruited into the joint by chemokines and cytokines produced by immune cells and bacteria and are activated by pathogen-associated molecular patterns. While these cells are efficient killers of planktonic bacteria by phagocytosis, opsonization, degranulation, and recruitment of adaptive immune cells, biofilm-associated bacteria are troublesome. Biofilm is not only a physical barrier for the immune system but also elicits effector functions. Additionally, bacteria have developed mechanisms to evade the immune system by inactivating effector molecules, promoting killing or anti-inflammatory effector cell phenotypes, and intracellular persistence and dissemination. Understanding these shortcomings and the mechanisms by which bacteria can subvert the immune system may open new approaches to better prepare our own immune system to combat PJI. Furthermore, preoperative immune system assessment and screening for dysregulation may aid in developing preventative interventions to decrease PJI incidence.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Background

Periprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

Results

The infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.