Does Time to Reimplantation After Explant for Prosthetic Joint Infection Influence the Likelihood of Successful Outcomes at 2 Years?

Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Are Patients Still Better off Than if Primary Arthroplasty Had Not Been Performed?

BACKGROUND

This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and after successful treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with the hypothesis that patients still demonstrate clinical improvement despite the occurrence of PJI.

METHODS

A single tertiary academic center's institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary TJA, developed PJI, and were managed for PJI from January 2019 to December 2023. Patients who did not have PROMs recorded were excluded from the study. Preoperative and postoperative generic and joint-specific PROMs were collected. Patient preprimary and postfinal revision surgery for PJI PROMs were subsequently compared. The minimum follow-up after PJI treatment was 6 months. A total of 55 patients (31 total knee arthroplasty and 24 total hip arthroplasty) were included with a mean follow-up of 1.8 years (range, 6 months to 4.5 years). All PJIs were managed via debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, 1-stage, 1.5-stage, 2-stage revision, or resection arthroplasty.

RESULTS

After final revision surgery for PJI in total knee arthroplasty, patients had lower median patient-reported outcome measure information system (PROMIS) pain interference scores than before their primary surgery (62.0 [55.0, 67.0] versus 67.0 [65.0, 70.5]; P < 0.01). However, median PROMIS physical function postfinal revision for PJI and preprimary scores were similar (38.0 [33.0, 42.0] versus 34.0 [29.5, 40.0]; P = 0.08). After final revision surgery for PJI in total hip arthroplasty, patients had lower median PROMIS pain interference scores than before their primary surgery (57.5 [53.8, 64.0] versus 68.0 [66.5, 74.0]; P < 0.01). After final revision surgery for PJI, patients also had higher median PROMIS physical function scores than before their primary surgery (39.5 [33.5, 48.2] versus 29.5 [28.8, 34.2]; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have been successfully managed for PJI show improvement in generic and joint-specific PROMs compared to their preprimary TJA PROMs.

Identifying potential predictive indicators for reimplantation timing in two-stage revision: a meta-analysis and system review

PURPOSE

The two-stage exchange revision represents a pivotal strategy in the management of prosthetic joint infections, wherein the judicious timing of reimplantation serves as a crucial determinant for therapeutic success. At present, attempts have been made to utilize predictive models to establish the optimal timing for reimplantation; however, their predictive accuracy remains unsatisfactory. This inadequacy primarily arises from the lack of dependable predictive indicators, which demonstrate inconsistent effectiveness across various studies and occasionally yield contradictory outcomes. Therefore, identifying solid predictive indicators is in desperate need.

METHODS

Studies reporting outcomes of the two-stage exchange revision till June, 2023 were systematically retrieved, screened and subject to quality analysis. Basic characteristics of these studies were firstly summarized. Subsequently, factors of interest regarding clinical information, blood and body fluid test results, pathogen test results of the recurrent and recurrent-free cohorts were extracted and submitted to a fixed or random effects model. Meanwhile, evaluation of publication bias and sensitivity was performed.

RESULTS

After filtering, a total of 45 studies were finally involved. Pooled analysis suggested that the recurrent cohort exhibited elevated incidences of body mass index (BMI) > 30, smoking and alcohol habits, diabetes, sinus tract, positive culture, and G-, polymicrobial and drug-resistant infections. Additionally, higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial white blood cell (WBC) count, and polymorphonuclear percentage (PMN%) were observed in the recurrent cohort. On the other hand, the results of D-dimer and fibrinogen were ambiguous, and no difference regarding peripheral WBC count was observed. Forest plots suggested a low risk of publication bias. Besides, sensitivity analysis indicated good stability of the aforementioned indicators, except D-dimer and fibrinogen.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, BMI > 30, smoking and alcohol habits, diabetes, sinus tract, positive culture, and G-, polymicrobial and drug-resistant infections, CRP, ESR, synovial WBC and PMN% exhibited significant differences between recurrent and recurrent-free cohorts. Therefore, these indicators may be considered as potential predictive factors for the further development of a prognostic model that aids the determination of reimplantation timing. Nevertheless, the efficacy of these indicators remains to be further confirmed.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero ID: CRD42022296568.

Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Two stage revision arthroplasty remains the gold standard for peri-prosthetic joint infections of the knee. However, the functional outcomes of revision surgeries and the factors governing them require further investigation. The purpose of this study was to (a) evaluate impact of early and late stage I surgery and interval between stage I and stage II; (b) understand the impact of infecting organism and resistance; (c) to estimate long term survivorship and causes of failure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 86 patients, who underwent two stage revision for prosthetic joint infections of the knee, was performed. Time between onset of symptoms to stage I (T1), and T1 to re-implantation (T2), along with microbiological studies, were analysed for their impact on functional outcomes, failure modalities and survivorship.

RESULTS

In this study, the mean KSS-Knee improved from 64.0 ± 10.0 pre-operatively to 76.9 ± 10.4, and 77.2 ± 10.1 at the 5 and 10 year follow up respectively. The KSS-Function improved from 44.4 ± 8.8 pre-operatively to 72.2 ± 9.5 and 79.8 ± 8.1 at 5 and 10 year follow-up respectively. This study also found that T1 and T2 remained critical factors in determining functional outcome and longevity of the implant and a delay in these intervals was a significant predictor of failure. Gram negative, poly-microbial infections and organisms with methicillin and vancomycin resistance demonstrated lower survivorship (p-value, 0.001 at 5, 10 and 12 years). Re-infections occurred in 4 cases while 9 cases failed due to aseptic causes.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage revision arthroplasty produced good functional outcomes when the infection was caused by single sensitive organism that did not exhibit high resistance to antibiotics. Stage I performed within 4 weeks and the subsequent re-implantation procedure undertaken within 6 weeks demonstrated better outcomes.

Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is a complication that affects approximately 2-3% of patients. The management of this issue is complicated and expensive for both the patients and the healthcare system. Multiple management options are available including antibiotic suppressive therapy, surgical management, and salvage procedures. Surgical management is considered a popular option for treating PJI, with multiple available surgical techniques, including single-stage revision arthroplasty and two-stage revision arthroplasty among others. Two-stage revision has been considered the gold standard for treating PJI. This method consists of two surgical procedures with a time interval in between, the first procedure aims to eradicate the infection along with implanting either a static or a mobile spacer, while the second intervention aims to remove the spacer and implant a new prothesis. During the interval period the patient is closely monitored through a handful of laboratory tests and clinical signs that help in assessing the optimal time of undertaking the second stage. However, in recent years, the single-stage method has gained much attention for its comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Contrary to the two-stage method, the single-stage approach consists only of one procedure in which the old infected prosthesis is removed and a new one is implanted. Many articles have compared the two methods over the years but have not agreed on a particular approach to be more potent in eliminating infection and providing better outcomes. Plenty of questions are yet to be answered regarding the two methods, including the superior type of spacer, interim period duration, and single-stage revision inclusion criteria. We herein, aim to address these issues, highlighting recent advances in managing this morbid complication and discussing controversial topics in the staged procedures.

Success Rate After 2-Stage Spacer-Free Total Hip Arthroplasty Exchange and Risk Factors for Reinfection: A Prospective Cohort Study of 187 Patients

BACKGROUND

Two-stage prosthesis exchange is the treatment of choice for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of a total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially when the bone and surrounding soft tissues are compromised or difficult-to-treat pathogens are implicated. The aims of our study were as follows: (1) to determine the outcome of 2-stage prosthesis exchange for the treatment of PJI after THA and (2) to determine the risk factors for reinfection leading to subsequent revision surgeries after reimplantation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 187 consecutive patients who underwent a 2-stage THA exchange with resection arthroplasty for PJI from 2013 to 2019. The mean (± SD) duration of follow-up was 54.2 ± 24.9 months (range, 36 to 96), and the mean interval until reimplantation was 9.8 ± 8.9 weeks (range, 2 to 38). All patients remained in a spacer-free girdlestone situation between the 2 stages of treatment. Patients who remained infection-free after their 2-stage treatment were considered to have achieved treatment success.

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 85.6%. The cumulative probability of reinfection was 11.5% after one year and 14% after 2 years after reimplantation. High virulence or difficult-to-treat pathogens were significant and independent risk factors for reinfection (HR [hazard ratio] = 3.71, 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.47 to 9.36, P = .006 and HR = 3.85, 95% CI: 1.73 to 8.57, respectively, P = .001), as was previous 2-stage hip prosthesis exchange (HR = 3.58, 95% CI: 1.33 to 9.62, P = .01). Overall reoperation and revision rates were 26.2 and 16.6%, respectively. Re-infected patients had an 80% higher probability of reoperation than noninfected ones (P < .001, log-rank = 102.6), and they were 55% more likely to undergo revision surgery during their follow-up (P < .001, log-rank = 55.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Reinfection rates after 2-stage spacer-free THA revision for PJI still remain high but are comparable to those including cement spacers. Patients who have had prior failed 2-stage implant exchanges or are infected by high-grade or difficult-to-treat pathogens are at high risk for treatment failure.

Upcoming evidence in clinical practice of two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection

Total joint arthroplasty is the recommended treatment for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis, as it reduces disability and pain and restores joint function. However, prosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of this procedure, with the two-stage exchange being the most common treatment method. While there is consensus on diagnosing prosthetic joint infection, there is a lack of agreement on the parameters that can guide the surgeon in performing definitive reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. One approach that has been suggested to improve the accuracy of microbiologic investigations before definitive reimplantation is to observe a holiday period from antibiotic therapy to improve the accuracy of cultures from periprosthetic tissues, but these cultures report some degree of aspecificity. Therefore, several pieces of evidence highlight that performing reimplantation using continuous antibiotic therapy should be considered a safe and effective approach, leading to higher cure rates and a shorter period of disability. Dosage of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ERS) and D-dimer are helpful in diagnosing prosthetic joint infection, but only D-dimer has shown sufficient accuracy in predicting the risk of infection recurrence after a two-stage procedure. Synovial fluid analysis before reimplantation has been shown to be the most accurate in predicting recurrence, and new cutoff values for leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage have shown a useful predictive rule to identify patients at risk of unfavourable outcome. A new scoring system based on a numerical score calculated from the beta coefficient derived through multivariate analysis of D-dimer levels, synovial fluid leukocytes and relative neutrophils percentage has demonstrated high accuracy when it comes to guiding the second step of two-stage procedure. In conclusion, reimplantation may be a suitable option for patients who are on continuous therapy without local symptoms, and with CRP and ERS within the normal range, with low synovial fluid leukocytes (< 952/mL) and a low relative neutrophil percentage (< 52%) and D-dimer below 1100 µg/mL. A numerical score derived from analysing these three parameters can serve as a valuable tool in determining the feasibility of reimplantation in these patients.

Evaluation of time to reimplantation as a risk factor in two-stage revision with static spacers for periprosthetic knee joint infection

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the time to reimplantation (TTR) during two-stage revision using static spacers with regard to treatment success and function in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee.

METHODS

163 patients (median age 72 years, 72 women) who underwent two-stage exchange for chronic knee PJI between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (based on the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria). A cutoff TTR for increased risk of reinfection was identified using the maximally selected log-rank statistic. Infection control, aseptic revisions and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Adjustment for confounding factors-the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and C-reactive protein (CRP)-was done with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

When TTR exceeded 94 days, the adjusted hazard of reinfection was increased 2.8-fold (95% CI 1.4-5.7; p = 0.0036). The reinfection-free rate was 67% (95% CI 52-79%) after 2 years and 33% (95% CI 11-57%) after 5 years for a longer TTR compared to 89% (95% CI 81-94%) and 80% (95% CI 69-87%) at 2 and 5 years, respectively, for a shorter TTR. Adjusted overall survival and number of aseptic revisions did not differ between the longer TTR and shorter TTR groups. Maximum knee flexion was 90° (IQR 84-100) for a longer TTR and 95° (IQR 90-100) for a shorter TTR (p = 0.0431), with no difference between the groups in Oxford Knee Score. Baseline characteristics were similar (body mass index, age, previous surgeries, microorganisms) for the two groups, except that there was a higher CCI (median 4 vs. 3) and higher CRP (median 3.7 vs 2.6 mg/dl) in the longer TTR group.

CONCLUSION

A long TTR is sometimes unavoidable in clinical practice, but surgeons should be aware of a potentially higher risk of reinfection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

Inferior Outcomes for Patients Transferred Between Surgical Stages for Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty may result in 2-stage revision surgery. There are limited data describing outcomes when the first stage is completed at an outside hospital and the patient is referred to a tertiary center. We hypothesized that patients have greater success when both surgeries occur at a single center.

METHODS

There were 25 knee PJI patients who presented with an antibiotic spacer and had a minimum 2-year follow-up who were retrospectively identified at a single tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2021. A cohort matched for age, sex, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidity measure, spacer type, infectious organism, and year of surgery was established with patients who had both stages completed at the investigating institution. Modified Delphi success criteria of no subsequent surgery or reinfection with any species were compared.

RESULTS

The transferred group demonstrated a treatment success of 40% compared to 84% in the continuous group (P < .01). The transferred group was more likely to have an additional procedure between stages (44 versus 8%, P < .01), with a higher number of surgeries after primary total knee arthroplasty (4.8 versus 3.0, P < .01), between stages (1.4 versus 0.2, P < .01), and after second stage (0.8 versus 0.2, P = .03). The transferred group had longer durations between stages (20.1 versus 7.0 weeks, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Patients who have PJIs transferred between stages demonstrated higher treatment failure. Surgeons should consider transfer early with a goal of continuous management by a single institution.

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of 2-Stage Septic Versus Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared the clinical outcomes of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), their results have been controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complications of septic and aseptic revision TKA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase databases were searched for studies evaluating the clinical outcomes and complications of 2-stage septic revision and aseptic revision TKAs. A systematic review of clinical outcomes (Knee Society Knee and Function Scores and range of motion) and complications (reoperation, infection, and failure rates) was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. The mean MINORS (Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies) score of the included studies was 20.5 (range, 18 to 22). The meta-analysis revealed higher reoperation (risk ratio [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50 to 2.62; p < 0.00001), infection (RR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.94 to 5.64; p < 0.00001), and failure rates (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.38 to 6.03; p = 0.005) in septic revision TKAs than in aseptic revision TKAs. Moreover, septic revision TKAs showed lower Knee Society Knee Scores compared with aseptic TKAs (mean difference [MD], -6.86; 95% CI, -11.80 to -1.92; p = 0.006). However, the Knee Society Function Score (MD, -1.84; 95% CI, -7.84 to 3.80; p = 0.52) and range of motion (MD, -6.96°; 95% CI, -16.23° to 2.31°; p = 0.14) were not significantly different between septic and aseptic revision TKAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity of prosthesis designs and surgical protocols used in septic and aseptic revision TKAs, the results of this systematic review suggest that 2-stage septic revision TKAs have poorer clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than aseptic revision TKAs do.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

A case report on Mycobacterium houstonense infection after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Mycobacterium houstonense is a category of rapidly growing mycobacteria that is gram-positive, acid-fast, polycrystalline, and non-spore-forming. There have been few reports of human infection caused by Mycobacterium houstonense worldwide.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of chronic periprosthetic joint infection caused by Mycobacterium houstonense in an elderly female patient. The patient developed signs of infection after undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Despite receiving antibiotic treatment and revision surgery, the signs of infection recurred repeatedly. Multiple bacterial cultures during the treatment period were negative. Later, we identified the pathogenic bacteria Mycobacterium houstonense through mNGS testing, isolated the bacteria from the ultrasonically centrifuged fluid of the prosthesis and obtained drug sensitivity results. Finally, we performed a revision surgery and treated the patient with moxifloxacin and clindamycin. After treatment, the patient did not show signs of infection recurrence during 24 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Through a relevant literature search, we believe that Mycobacterium houstonense may show higher sensitivity to amikacin and quinolone antibiotics. Additionally, clarifying occult infection sources through methods such as gene testing will improve the diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection.

Interval between two-stage exchanges: what is optimal and how do you know?

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the most popular option for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Determining infection eradication and optimal timing of reimplantation can be challenging. Information to allow for a truly informed evidence-based decision is scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a critical review of available evidence on the presently available tests to help determine timing of reimplantation.

RESULTS

Serology is traditionally used to follow up patients after the first stage. Despite tradition mandates waiting for normal inflammatory markers, there is actually no evidence that they correlate with persistent infection. The role of synovial fluid investigation between stages is also explored. Cultures lack sensitivity and neither differential leukocyte counts nor alternative biomarkers have proven to be accurate in identifying persistent infection with a spacer in situ. We also examined the evidence regarding the optimal time interval between resection and reimplantation and whether there is evidence to support the implementation of a two week "antibiotic holiday" prior to proceeding with reimplantation. Finally, wound healing and other important factors in this setting will be discussed.

CONCLUSION

Currently there are no accurate metrics to aid in the decision on the optimal timing for reimplantation. Decision must therefore rely on the resolution of clinical signs and down trending serological and synovial markers.

Temporary arthrodesis through static spacer implantation in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the knee

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the knee requires the removal of the implant and thorough debridement, with reimplantation in a second stage surgery. Intramedullary spacers can be helpful during the interval between explantation and reimplantation and provide a temporary arthrodesis which fixes the knee in extension preserving leg length and administers local antibiotic therapy.

INDICATIONS

Periprosthetic joint infection of the knee with large bony defects and severe infection of the native joint with advanced destruction/infiltration of the cartilage and bone and/or ligament insufficiency.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Suspected antibiotic resistance of the microbiological pathogen to local antibiotic drugs, incompliant patient, and known allergy to bone cement or antibiotic.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

After implant removal, suitable metal rods are coated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement and inserted into the cleaned intramedullary canals of femur and tibia. Rods are joined at the joint line with a connector and joint space is filled with more bone cement to achieve temporary and very stable arthrodesis.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Partial weight-bearing and no flexion/extension while spacer is in place; second stage reimplantation as soon as infection is controlled.

RESULTS

Complications related to the spacer were rare (5.3%). Reimplantation of an implant was possible in 95 of 113 patients (84%), of those, 23 (20%) received an arthrodesis. Of the 95 patients that were reimplanted, 14 showed signs of recurrent infection. Mean time to last follow-up was 15.6 months post reimplantation. Mean knee pain was 2.9/10; overall function was good; 6 patients had an extension lag; mean total range of motion was 88°.

Does Treatment at a Specialized Prosthetic Joint Infection Center Improve the Rate of Reimplantation

INTRODUCTION

Two-Stage exchange arthroplasty is currently the preferred treatment method for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The effectiveness of this strategy in returning patients to premorbid function has recently been challenged. In a review of 18, 535 PJI knee patients, 38% did not undergo reimplantation (17). In another review of 18,156 hip and knee PJI patients, 43% did not undergo reimplantation (16). These disturbing statistics led us to ask whether treatment at a specialized prosthetic joint infection center could improve the rate of reimplantation compared to the previously noted studies from large national administrative databases.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our registry was performed to identify 390 patients who underwent a two-stage exchange after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) who had a confirmed chronic bacterial PJI, defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, from January 2010 through December 2019. Variables included number of joints resected, number replanted, and the number not replanted.

RESULTS

Of the 390 patients undergoing 2-stage treatment, 386 of 390 (99%) were reimplanted and 4of 390 (1%) were not replanted due to medical issues.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that 2-stage treatment at a PJI Center significantly improves the rate of reimplantation. A specialized Prosthetic Joint Infection Center with experienced revision surgeons doing high volume infection procedures, complemented by infectious disease and medical consultants familiar with the special needs of PJI patients may be advantageous. A national network of such centers may have the ability to improve outcomes, standardize treatment protocols, and allow for collaborative research.

Is long time to reimplantation a risk factor for reinfection in two-stage revision for periprosthetic infection? A systematic review of the literature

The two-stage revision arthroplasty is a common treatment option for chronic periprosthetic infection (PJI). The time to reimplantation (TTR) reported in the literature varies substantially from a few days to several hundred days. It is hypothesized that longer TTR could be associated with worse infection control after second stage. A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection in clinical studies published until January 2023. Eleven studies investigating TTR as a potential risk factor for reinfection met the inclusion criteria (ten retrospective and one prospective study, published 2012-2022). Study design and outcome measures differed notably. The cutoff points above which TTR was regarded as "long" ranged from 4 to 18 weeks. No study observed a benefit for long TTR. In all studies, similar or even better infection control was observed for short TTR. The optimal TTR, however, is not yet defined. Larger clinical studies with homogeneous patient populations and adjustment for confounding factors are needed.