The outcome of resection shoulder arthroplasty for recalcitrant shoulder infections

Can Pyrocarbon be used as a functional spacer for the treatment of recalcitrant shoulder infections?

Background

The most common treatment approach in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and chronic shoulder joint infection (SJI) is a two-stage revision involving interval placement of an antibiotic cement spacer or a resection arthroplasty. Knowing that Pyrocarbon has a smooth surface that prevents pathogen adhesion, the question arises whether it could be used as a temporary or permanent functional spacer?

Purpose

The primary objective of the present study was to assess the rate of infection eradication after temporary or definitive implantation of Pyrocarbon Interposition Shoulder Arthroplasty (PISA) in patients with recalcitrant PJI or SJI. Our secondary objective was to assess mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods

Fifteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 19 years) with chronic shoulder infection underwent, after joint débridement, implantation of PISA (InSpyre; Tornier-Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with tailored perioperative antibiotics. In 7 cases, PJI occurred after hemiarthroplasty (n = 2), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 2), hemireverse (n = 2), and resurfacing arthroplasty (n = 1). In 8 cases, SJI occurred in the context of failed surgery after fracture sequelae (n = 4), instability (n = 2), and cuff arthropathy (n = 2). Preoperatively, patients had a mean of 3 previous failed surgeries before PISA implantation. Patients were evaluated with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic assessment at a minimum of 2 years after surgery.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 55 ± 18 months, no patient experienced reinfection after temporary (3 cases) or definitive (12 cases) PISA implantation. The adjusted Constant score increased from 33% ± 20 preoperatively to 65% ± 28 at last follow-up and SSV from 22% ± 19 to 63% ± 23 (P < .001). Active forward elevation increased from 27° ± 19 to 113° ± 30, external rotation from 7° ± 21 to 25° ± 25, and internal rotation level 3 ± 2 to level 5 ± 2 points (P < . 001). On final radiographs of definitive PISA, complete humeral densification, or a neocortex, formed around the implant in 64% (7/11).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that, after washout, débridement and tailored antibiotics, PISA can be used as a temporary or definitive functional spacer for the treatment of recalcitrant shoulder infections and presents the following advantages: (1) PISA does not seem to be a risk for recurrent infection thanks to the antibacterial property of Pyrocarbon; (2) PISA can be used as a temporary or a definitive spacer without causing bone erosion, thanks to the low modulus of elasticity of Pyrocarbon; (3) PISA can be used as a salvage procedure in case of complete glenoid or humeral destruction, thanks to the sphericity of the implant needing no implant anchorage.

Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 60 Years: Results of a Multicenter Study

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty remains a significant complication. This study aimed to explore the epidemiology and risk factors of shoulder PJI in patients aged 60 and younger, analyze treatment options, and evaluate outcomes after 1-year follow-up. Methods: In this retrospective multicentric observational study, data from 1404 shoulders in patients under 60 who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed. Patients with PJI and at least 1-year follow-up after infection treatment were included. Results: The study identified 55 shoulders with PJI, resulting in a 2.35% infection rate after primary shoulder arthroplasty in the young population. Male gender and reverse shoulder arthroplasty were risk factors for infection, while previous surgeries did not significantly contribute. The most common causative agents were Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Open washout had a 52.9% success rate for acute infections, while one-stage and two-stage revisions achieved infection control rates of 91.3% and 85.7%, respectively. Resection arthroplasty had an 81.8% success rate but poorer functional outcomes. Conclusions: PJI following shoulder arthroplasty in young patients is a significant concern. Preoperative planning should be carefully considered to minimize infection risk. Treatment options such as open washout and one-stage and two-stage revisions offer effective infection control and improved functional outcomes. Resection arthroplasty should be reserved for complex cases where reimplantation is not a viable option.

Interposition Arthroplasty for Chronic Proximal Humerus Osteomyelitis: A Case Report

CASE

Two years after a right shoulder arthroscopic procedure, a 49-year-old woman presented with significant dysfunction and pain to our orthopaedic department. Laboratory and imaging evaluation demonstrated chronic glenohumeral osteomyelitis with irreparable damage to the humeral articular surface. A 2-stage soft-tissue shoulder interposition arthroplasty was performed to rebalance the joint. Long-term follow-up revealed functional results with pain control and no reinfection.

CONCLUSION

For patients at high risk of reinfection or unable to undergo prosthetic joint implantation, this approach may be considered a functional alternative to salvage procedures.

Schaalia (Formerly Actinomyces) turicensis Infection Following Open Rotator Cuff Repair

We report the case of a male in his early 70s who developed a deep infection after an open rotator cuff repair, with Schaalia turicensis as the only organism isolated from a surgical biopsy of the tendon remnants and phlegmatic/purulent material at the failed repair site. This species was originally within the genus Actinomyces. We report this case because it is the only one that we could locate where an infected open rotator cuff repair site grew S. turicensis. Our patient was not diabetic, did not smoke, and did not have other recent or concurrent infections. He had hypertension, hypothyroidism, depression, and a hyperactive bladder. Hence, he only had minor risk factors for infection. His postoperative shoulder infection was eradicated with surgical irrigation and debridement, and 6.5 weeks of primarily oral antibiotic treatment. We also review the literature on infections after any shoulder surgery where Schaalia or Actinomyces species were isolated.

Outcomes after resection arthroplasty versus permanent antibiotic spacer for salvage treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although revision to new components is favored after shoulder periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), implant exchange is not always feasible. In certain cases, definitive treatment may be retainment of an antibiotic spacer or resection arthroplasty. The purpose of this investigation was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting on outcomes after resection arthroplasty or permanent antibiotic spacer for salvage treatment of shoulder PJIs.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for Level I-IV studies that reported on the final treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infections using resection arthroplasty or a permanent antibiotic spacer. Data recorded included study demographics, causative infectious organism, shoulder-specific range of motion and outcome measures, and infection eradication rate. Study methodological quality was analyzed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. Forest plots of proportions and meta-analyses of single means were generated for infection eradication rates and outcomes, respectively. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. A P value of .05 was set as significant.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 635 articles (211 duplicates, 424 screened, 57 full-text review). Twenty-three articles (126 resection arthroplasty and 177 retained antibiotic spacer patients, 51% females, mean age range 37-78.5 years, mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score 9.6 ± 0.7) were included and analyzed. The pooled infection eradication rate was 82% (72%-89%) after resection arthroplasty and 85% (79%-90%) after permanent antibiotic spacer. The pooled mean forward flexion (71.5° vs. 48.7°; P < .001) and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (53.5 vs. 31.0; P < .001) were significantly higher for patients treated with a permanent antibiotic spacer compared with resection arthroplasty. No significant differences were found for mean external rotation (13.5° vs. 20.5°; P = .07), abduction (58.2° vs. 50.3°; P = .27), or visual analog scale pain (3.7 vs. 3.4; P = .24) between groups. There was a statistically significant, but not clinically significant, difference in mean Constant score between permanent antibiotic spacer and resection arthroplasty patients (33.6 vs. 30.0; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

When implant exchange after shoulder PJI is not feasible, permanent antibiotic spacers and resection arthroplasty are both salvage procedures that provide similar rates of infection eradication. Although both can decrease pain levels, the permanent antibiotic spacer may result in better functional outcomes compared with resection arthroplasty.

Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.

The management of infected shoulder arthroplasty by two-stage revision

BACKGROUND

There remains no gold standard management for deep shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This case series aims to present our experience of two-stage revision arthroplasty, including eradication of infection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for shoulder PJI between 2006 and 2015. Cases were confirmed using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. TSA removal, debridement and irrigation preceded antibiotic-loaded cement spacer insertion and a minimum of six weeks intravenous antibiotics. Reimplantation was performed as a second stage following a negative aspirate.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients underwent a first stage procedure (mean age 69 years; 16 male, 12 female). Propionibacterium acnes, Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the commonest microorganisms cultured. Five cases had mixed growths and six cases provided no growth. Three patients did not proceed to a second stage. Twenty-five patients underwent reimplantation (mean interval 6.7 months), with 80% remaining infection-free (mean follow-up 38.3 months).

DISCUSSION

Managing complex and late presentation shoulder PJI with two-stage revision is associated with high rates of infection eradication (80%). In the absence of a management consensus, our experience supports two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradicating infection in this complex patient group.

Salvage Procedures of the Shoulder: Glenohumeral Arthrodesis and Resection Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With the advances of modern medicine and technology there has been an increase of indications of shoulder reconstruction techniques and shoulder arthroplasty. Consequently, the number of complications and failures have increased in parallel. Not negligible number of cases are driven to an end-stage situation where salvage procedures, such as glenohumeral arthrodesis (GHA) and shoulder resection arthroplasty (SRA), are the only remaining solution.

METHODS

The current literature on glenohumeral arthrodesis and shoulder resection arthroplasty was reviewed to determine the indications, surgical technique, complications and outcomes. The electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the strategies used were "glenohumeral arthrodesis", "glenohumeral fusion", "shoulder arthrodesis" and "shoulder resection arthroplasty".

RESULTS

Indications for glenohumeral arthrodesis (GHA) include brachial plexus injury, tumor resections, chronic infection, failed prosthetic arthroplasty, persistent refractory instability or pseudoparalysis of the shoulder with combined irreparable rotator cuff and deltoid injuries. GHA provides good stability, pain resolution, although function is markedly compromised and relying mostly on scapulothoracic joint. The gold standard surgical technique continues to be open shoulder arthrodesis and still has a high complication rate. Shoulder resection arthroplasty (SRA) indications have evolved through the years, being nowadays a salvage procedure for recalcitrant infection of shoulder arthroplasty the main indication. Shoulder function after SRA is often severely compromised, but has a high infection rate resolution. SRA is not technically demanding and complications are rare, being the persistence of infection the most common one.

DISCUSSION

Despite GHA and SRA having negative connotations, in selected patients, these procedures can diminish pain, resolve persistent infections and provide an acceptable shoulder function. Hence, they should be retained as part of the treatment algorithm for complex shoulder pathology.

Permanent Spacers Are a Reliable Solution for Peri-prosthetic Shoulder Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Peri-prosthetic shoulder infection (PSI), a highly disabling complication of shoulder arthroplasty, often requires additional surgery and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Of strategies proposed to manage this devastating condition, the use of cement spacers, perhaps even as a definitive treatment, is debated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to systematically review the literature on antibiotic-loaded cement spacers as a viable, perhaps definitive, treatment for PSI, evaluating the eradication rates, mechanical reliability, and functional results related to its use.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies published from January 1, 1980, through September 1, 2019. Following the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, we searched for studies reporting functional and clinical outcomes in patients with PSI treated with a permanent spacer of the shoulder. Two independent reviewers searched eight databases, as well as reference lists of the retrieved articles.

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria were applied, 12 studies were included, involving a total of 143 patients. The mean age was 65.8 years; the mean follow-up was 37.4 months. A total of 133 patients (93%) were free from infection at latest follow-up. The mean post-operative active elevation of the shoulder ranged from 48.6 to 90°, the mean abduction ranged from 51 to 75°, and external rotation ranged from 3.6 to 29°. The mean Constant-Murley score ranged from 20.6 to 42 points (out of 100, from worst to best).

CONCLUSION

The use of a permanent cement spacer is a reliable solution to PSI in low-demand, older patients with comorbidities, a population in whom it is desirable to avoid additional surgery. Our review found a high rate of infection eradication and moderate-to-good objective and subjective results. However, the overall level of evidence of included studies was very low, and higher-quality studies are needed to clarify the role of permanent spacers in the treatment of PSI.

[Two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for treating postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of proximal humeral fracture]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the effectiveness of two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for treating postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of the proximal humeral fracture.

METHODS

Between June 2014 and January 2018, 17 patients with deep infection and humeral head necrosis or bone nonunion after internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures were treated. There were 8 males and 9 females, aged from 52 to 78 years (mean, 63.8 years). The infection occurred at 19-66 months after the initial internal fixation (mean, 34.8 months). Microbial culture of joint fluid was positive in 14 cases and negative in 3 cases. The preoperative Constant score, American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were 36.41±8.65, 31.06±7.43, and 7.29±0.99, respectively. The preoperative ranges of forward flexion, abduction, external rotation were (45.88±12.46), (42.18±12.31), and (16.76±4.92)°, respectively. The preoperative range of internal rotation was buttock in 9 cases, lumbosacral joint in 3 cases, L 3 in 5 cases. At the first-stage surgery, the thorough debridement was done and the antibiotic-impregnated bone cement spacer was placed after the removal of internal fixation. After the infections disappeared, the two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was performed. The mean interval between the two procedures was 4.2 months (range, 3.0-6.5 months).

RESULTS

All the incisions healed primarily and no complications such as recurrent infection or vascular nerve injury occurred. All patients were followed up 15-32 months (mean, 22.0 months). At last follow-up, the ranges of forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation were (109.00±23.66), (98.53±16.92), (41.41±6.82)°, respectively; and the range of internal rotation was lumbosacral joint in 5 cases, L 3 in 8 cases, T 12 in 4 cases. The range of motion of shoulder joints at last follow-up was significant improved when compared with the preoperative range of motion ( P<0.05). The Constant score (64.88±8.70), ASES score (65.18±8.10), and VAS score (2.94±1.25) were significantly superior to the preoperative scores ( P<0.05). X-ray films showed that no prosthesis loosening occurred.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is an effective treatment for the postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of the proximal humeral fracture, which has advantages of low risk of infection recurrence, good shoulder function, and satisfactory short-term effectiveness.

One- or two-stage exchange for periprosthetic shoulder infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

One-stage exchange is the gold-standard for management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. The present review compares efficacy between 1- and 2-stage exchange in this indication.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) criteria. The literature search used the Medline, Embase and Central data-bases. The studies included assessed 1- and 2-stage exchange in periprosthetic shoulder infection. The main outcome was reinfection rate, and the secondary outcome postoperative complications rate.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies, for 501 patients, were included: 5 assessing 1-stage exchange, 11 2-stage, and 5 both. Mean follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 2-6.1 years). Mean reinfection rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 0 and 36.8% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 7% (95% CI, 3.8-12.5%) in 1-stage and 21.3% (95% CI, 16-27.9%) in 2-stage exchange. Mean complications rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 5.7% and 73%% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 17% (95% CI, 11.9-23.9%) in 1-stage and 32.8% (95% CI, 25.8-40.6%) in 2-stage exchange.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, the present meta-analysis is the first to assess results in 1- and 2-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic shoulder infection.

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange seemed to provide better results, with less reinfection and fewer complications than 2-stage exchange.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, meta-analysis.

An Anatomic Intraoperatively Prepared Antibiotic Spacer in Two-Stage Shoulder Reimplantation for Deep Infection: The Potential for Early Rehabilitation

Molded antibiotic shoulder spacers allow for intraoperative customization of antibiotics and multiple size options. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an anatomic intraoperatively molded spacer in the two-stage treatment of infection and to assess the safety of early rehabilitation when the capsule and rotator cuff are present. During 2014 and 2015, 27 shoulders were treated with a molded antibiotic cement spacer as part of a two-stage treatment. Indications included periprosthetic joint infection (n=18), native shoulder infection (n=8), and infection after internal fixation (n=1). All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Mean follow-up time was 29.6 months. Patients were allowed to perform motion exercises (group I; n=16) or were instructed to avoid motion (group II; n=11) after spacer implantation, depending on the condition of their rotator cuff. Infection was eradicated in 23 of the 27 shoulders (85%). At most recent follow-up, pain scores were lower in group I. Mean final elevation was 115° in group I compared with 93° in group II. Mean final active external rotation was 36°, with no difference between the groups. In 3 (4%) shoulders with significant proximal humeral bone loss, the spacer became rotationally unstable. An anatomic intraoperatively molded spacer can be implanted safely in two-stage treatment for deep infection and has a reasonable rate of eradication. When adequate capsule and rotator cuff tissue is present, early motion in between stages can be safely recommended with a trend toward improved forward elevation at final follow-up and may facilitate the second stage reimplantation. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(4):211-218.].

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: evaluation of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. More than 800 experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The shoulder workgroup reached consensus on 27 questions related to culture techniques, inflammatory markers, and diagnostic criteria used to evaluate patients for periprosthetic shoulder infection. This document contains the group's recommendations and rationale for each question related to evaluating periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Scoping review: Diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence regarding periprosthetic shoulder infection to inform development of evidence and consensus-based guidelines.

METHODS

A search of Medline, Embase and PubMed was performed; two authors screened the results independently for inclusion.

RESULTS

Totally 88 studies were included. Incidence of periprosthetic shoulder infection ranged from 0.7% to 7%. The most common organisms to cause periprosthetic shoulder infection were Propionibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Male gender and younger age are the most reported risk factors. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein and serum/synovial biomarkers had limited diagnostic accuracy. Thirty-nine studies reported the outcome of surgical management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Eradication rates vary from 54% to 100% for debridement procedures; 66-100% for permanent spacers; 50-100% following single-stage revision; 60-100% following two-stage revision; and 66-100% following resection arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

There is wide heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes of studies are often contradictory and due to issues with methodology and small sample sizes the optimal pathways for diagnosis and management cannot be determined from this review. Future research should be based on larger cohorts and randomised trials where feasible to provide more valid research for guiding future treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Outcomes of revision surgery after periprosthetic shoulder infection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) is one of the most challenging complications after shoulder arthroplasty. Different treatments have been proposed, but the best surgical procedure remains disputed in the current literature. This systematic review investigated the outcomes of revision surgery after PSI.

METHODS

The PubMed and Scopus databases were used to search keywords in April 2018. Of 2157 titles, 34 studies were finally analyzed. Demographics, laboratory and microbiological data, types of implants, surgical techniques with complications and reoperations, eradication rates, and clinical and functional outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 754 patients were identified. Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) was the most common microorganism found both in PSI (33%) and persistent infections (40%). Preoperatively, C-reactive protein was elevated in 70% of patients with PSI. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty had a lower prevalence of infection (P < .001). The eradication rate was 96% with 1 stage, 93% with permanent spacers, 86% with 2 stages, 85% with resection arthroplasty, and 65% with irrigation and débridement. One-stage revision was the best treatment, considering postoperative flexion and abduction, compared with resection arthroplasty, permanent spacers, and 2-stage revision. One-stage revision showed fewer postoperative complications than irrigation and débridement, resection arthroplasty, and 2-stage surgery. Two-stage surgery was the most common treatment, and the functional score demonstrated no differences between 2-stage and 1-stage procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that a 1-stage procedure should be recommended to treat PSI. Two-stage revision could be reserved for select cases in which the bacterium involved is unknown.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: management of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. A multidisciplinary team of international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology was assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The following consensus proceedings from the International Consensus Meeting involve 30 questions pertaining to the management of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

One-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

Studies on 1-stage exchange in septic shoulder arthroplasty are limited and show a wide variation of treatment strategies. This retrospective study investigated infection-free survival and function of 1-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm.

METHODS

The requirement for 1-stage exchange was an isolated microorganism from synovial fluid aspiration or synovial biopsy with an antibiotic susceptibility profile prior to revision surgery. If no microorganism was isolated or the underlying pathogen was a difficult-to-treat microorganism (not accessible for biofilm-active antibiotics, enterococci, and fungi), 2-stage exchange was performed. Function was assessed by the Constant score.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included, with a mean follow-up period of 5.8 years. The most and second most commonly detected microorganisms were Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, respectively. At 1-stage exchange, patients received local and systemic antibiotics based on the susceptibility profile of the microorganism. Twelve patients with insufficient rotator cuffs received reverse shoulder arthroplasty, whereas 2 patients with intact rotator cuffs underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The infection-free survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 100% and 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59%-99%), respectively, with 1 recurrence of infection 22 months after 1-stage exchange. Another patient with limited range of motion underwent revision 6 months postoperatively, leading to a revision-free survival rate of 93% (95% CI, 59%-99%) and 86% (95% CI, 54%-96%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The mean Constant score was 65 (range, 44-95).

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange with prior detection of the underlying microorganism provides satisfactory infection-free survival and function.

Implant Removal and Spacer Placement for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: Risk Factors for Repeat Procedures, Spacer Retention, and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Current studies reporting on patients following prosthesis removal and spacer placement for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the shoulder have largely been descriptive and insufficiently powered to determine risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation.

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study is to provide a national perspective on the 1-year outcomes following prosthesis removal and spacer placement and risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation for treatment of PJI following shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

A national database was queried for Medicare patients who underwent prosthesis removal and spacer placement for PJI between 2005 and 2012. These patients were then evaluated for 5 major study endpoints including: (1) replantation of a shoulder prosthesis within 1 year postoperatively, (2) a repeat irrigation and debridement with second antibiotic spacer placement procedure within 1 year postoperatively, (3) in-hospital death within 1 year postoperatively, (4) a shoulder Girdlestone-type procedure within 1 year postoperatively, and (5) the remaining patients, who were considered to have a retained spacer. Patients with a study endpoint within 1 year postoperatively were included in the study: (1) mortality, (2) repeat debridement, (3) resection arthroplasty, and (4) reimplantation. While it is possible that some patients were not captured due to errors in coding, it is unlikely that patients were lost to follow-up due to change in location of services, given that the database captures all episodes of care that are coded throughout the USA. Independent risk factors were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-five patients who underwent prosthesis removal and spacer placement were included. Within 1 year postoperatively, 21 patients died (2.2%), 70 patients had a repeat debridement procedure (7.2%), 55 patients had a resection arthroplasty procedure (5.6%), 349 patients retained their spacers (35.8%), and the remaining 480 patients had a shoulder arthroplasty reimplanted (49.2%). Numerous independent risk factors exist for all outcomes studied.

CONCLUSION

The fate of antibiotic spacers placed for PJI of the shoulder at 1 year is variable, with numerous independent risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation. Patients with PJI following total shoulder arthroplasty should be counseled on the risk factors that influence the outcomes of staged revision for shoulder PJI.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection of Shoulder Arthroplasties: Diagnostic and Treatment Options

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most frequent reasons for painful shoulder arthroplasties and revision surgery of shoulder arthroplasties. Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) is one of the microorganisms that most often causes the infection. However, this slow growing microorganism is difficult to detect. This paper presents an overview of different diagnostic test to detect a periprosthetic shoulder infection. This includes nonspecific diagnostic tests and specific tests (with identifying the responsible microorganism). The aspiration can combine different specific and nonspecific tests. In dry aspiration and suspected joint infection, we recommend a biopsy. Several therapeutic options exist for the treatment of PJI of shoulder arthroplasties. In acute infections, the options include leaving the implant in place with open debridement, septic irrigation with antibacterial fluids like octenidine or polyhexanide solution, and exchange of all removable components. In late infections (more than four weeks after implantation) the therapeutic options are a permanent spacer, single-stage revision, and two-stage revision with a temporary spacer. The functional results are best after single-stage revisions with a success rate similar to two-stage revisions. For single-stage revisions, the microorganism should be known preoperatively so that specific antibiotics can be mixed into the cement for implantation of the new prosthesis and specific systemic antibiotic therapy can be applied to support the surgery.

Two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of deep infection after shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Two-stage reimplantation is the most common treatment modality considered for periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). Most studies to date have reported on a relatively small number of shoulders. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of 2-stage reimplantation for PSI in terms of both eradication of infection and restoration of function.

METHODS

Between 1980 and 2010, 40 shoulders (39 patients) underwent a 2-stage reimplantation for PSI; 35 shoulders (34 patients) met inclusion criteria (10 hemiarthroplasties, 24 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties, 1 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty). Outcome data included pain, motion, Neer rating, and complications.

RESULTS

At most recent follow-up (4.1 years), 2-stage reimplantation had resulted in significant improvements in pain (from 4.4 to 2 on a 5-point scale; P < .0001), mean forward elevation (64°-118°; P < .0001), and mean external rotation (14°-41°; P < .0001). Preoperative testing showed leukocytosis in 1 patient, elevated C-reactive protein concentration in 67%, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate in 61%, and positive preoperative aspiration in 69%. Persistent infection, defined as positive cultures in samples obtained at the time of reimplantation, was identified in 5 shoulders (15%); 50% of persistent infections grew Propionibacterium acnes. Reoperations for infection included irrigation and débridement (1), a second 2-stage reimplantation (2), and resection arthroplasty (1); 2 additional patients were treated with chronic suppression. Reoperation for aseptic glenoid loosening was performed in 2 additional shoulders. Results were graded excellent in 10 (28%), satisfactory in 12 (33%), and unsatisfactory in 13 (39%) shoulders.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage reimplantation eradicated PSI in 85% of the shoulders. Pain relief and good arcs of motion were achieved in many patients, but there was an overall rate of unsatisfactory results approaching 40%. Preoperative testing was not always reliable for the diagnosis of PSI.

The cost effectiveness of vancomycin for preventing infections after shoulder arthroplasty: a break-even analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing methicillin resistance and recognition of Propionibacterium acnes as a cause of infection in shoulder arthroplasty has led to the adoption of local vancomycin powder application as a more effective method to prevent expensive periprosthetic infections. However, no study has analyzed the cost effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection after shoulder replacement.

METHODS

Cost data for infection-related care of 16 patients treated for deep periprosthetic shoulder infection was collected from our institution for the break-even analysis. An equation was developed and applied to the data to determine how effective vancomycin powder would need to be at reducing a baseline infection rate to make prophylactic use cost effective.

RESULTS

The efficacy of vancomycin (absolute risk reduction [ARR]) was evaluated at different unit costs, baseline infection rates, and average costs of treating infection. We determined vancomycin to be cost effective if the initial infection rate decreased by 0.04% (ARR). Using the current costs of vancomycin reported in the literature (range: $2.50/1000 mg to $44/1000 mg), we determined vancomycin to be cost effective with an ARR range of 0.01% at a cost of $2.50/1000 mg to 0.19% at $44/1000 mg. Baseline infection rate does not influence the ARR obtained at any specific cost of vancomycin or the cost of treating infection.

CONCLUSIONS

We have derived and used a break-even equation to assess efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics during shoulder surgery. We further demonstrated the prophylactic administration of local vancomycin powder during shoulder arthroplasty to be a highly cost-effective practice.

Management of acute or late hematogenous infection after shoulder arthroplasty with irrigation, débridement, and component retention

BACKGROUND

Irrigation and débridement (I&D) with component retention is an appealing alternative to both patients and surgeons for the management of acute or late hematogenous deep periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). However, the success rate and results of I&D are poorly documented. This study reports the outcomes and complications of this treatment strategy for acute and delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI.

METHODS

Between 1980 and 2010, 10 shoulders (9 patients) underwent I&D with component retention for the management on an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI at a single institution. Outcome data, including pain, range of motion, need for chronic oral antibiotic suppression therapy, eradication of infection, and need for further surgery were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Deep infection recurred in 3 shoulders, which were eventually treated with resection arthroplasty. Of the remaining 6 patients (7 shoulders), 5 were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression. At the most recent follow-up, pain was graded as none in 3 shoulders, mild in 1, moderate with activity in 3, moderate in 2, and severe in 1. Among shoulders with retained components, forward elevation was greater than 110° in 6 (median, 140°; range, 30°-160°), and external rotation was greater than 40° in all shoulders (median, 50°; range, 40°-90°).

CONCLUSION

I&D allowed component retention in 70% of shoulders presenting with an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous infection. Most patients were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression, and reasonable motion was maintained.

Outcomes in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although many case series have been published on the treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), few provide direct comparison of outcomes. This systematic review synthesizes the available English literature on shoulder PJI to quantify treatment effectiveness.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched in April 2014. Keywords included "shoulder replacement infection" and "shoulder arthroplasty infection." Of 663 titles, 55 manuscripts underwent full-text review after application of exclusion criteria. Thirty articles were finally included.

RESULTS

Propionibacterium acnes was most commonly reported, representing 38.9% of infections, followed by Staphylococcus species. Risk factors for shoulder PJI include previous surgery, increased age, male gender, increased body mass index, and diabetes mellitus. The average white blood cell count in 13 studies was 7472 cells/µL. Ten studies reported a mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 27.6 mm/h, whereas 14 studies reported a mean C-reactive protein level of 2.6 mg/dL. P. acnes in intraoperative culture specimens was an independent risk factor for failed treatment for shoulder PJI. When outcomes were pooled, no statistical difference was found in the success rates of 1-stage, 2-stage, or resection arthroplasty revision; each displayed a success rate >90%. However, single-stage revision produced the highest mean Constant score; implant retention resulted in the best range of motion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that single-stage revision can be as effective as 2-stage or resection treatments; however, the retrospective nature of these data precluded our ability to control for confounding variables. Future studies on shoulder PJI should involve direct comparisons of 1-stage vs. 2-stage treatment while comparing cost, morbidity, and functional outcomes.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with combined deltoid reconstruction in patients with anterior and/or middle deltoid tears

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Deltoid disruption has traditionally been an absolute contraindication to performing a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), and options available to patients have been limited. We present a series of patients with deltoid tears that underwent concomitant RTSA with deltoid reconstruction. We hypothesize that this combined procedure provides an acceptable, functional alternative for this complex patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients who were treated by a single surgeon with a concomitant RTSA and deltoid reconstruction from 2004 to 2012 with minimum 24-month follow-up. Six shoulders in 5 patients met these criteria. The mean age was 69 years (range, 61-79 years), and the mean follow-up period was 76.8 months (range, 24-133 months). We compared preoperative and postoperative range of motion and Penn Shoulder Scores, including subscores, using paired t tests.

RESULTS

Mean forward elevation and external rotation increased from 48° and 12°, respectively, to 120° and 22°, respectively. Penn scores increased from 45.2 to 77.8 postoperatively (P = .03). The Penn satisfaction subscore, in particular, improved from 1.1 (of 10) to 9.0 (P = .005). There was a low rate of recurrent deltoid failure (1 of 6 shoulders), and there were no infections or revisions.

DISCUSSION

Deltoid reconstruction at the same time as RTSA is a viable treatment option as a salvage procedure for patients with deltoid deficiency who otherwise need RTSA for treatment of massive rotator cuff deficiency. In this small series, simultaneous RTSA and deltoid reconstruction resulted in a functional shoulder with a high level of satisfaction and good motion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Case Series; Treatment Study.

Revisions of total shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical results and complications of various modalities

INTRODUCTION

The number of primary total shoulder arthroplasties has increased exponentially in recent years, with a corresponding increase in the number of revision procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical results and complications in a series of shoulder implant replacement, of whatever etiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-seven patients, with a mean age of 68.3±11.8 years at time of implant replacement, were included in a retrospective study. Mean interval between primary arthroplasty and revision was 78.4±59.7 months (range, 1-200 months). The main assessment criterion was changed in Constant score between preoperative value and follow-up. Secondary criteria were: onset of intra- and postoperative complications, and reoperation related to a complication.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 41.5±32.0 months (range, 12-105 months). Absolute Constant score increased by a mean 17.5±15.1 points (P<0.001) and weighted Constant score by 26.3±23.6 points (P<0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 24.3% of patients (9/37) and postoperative complications in 29.7% (11/37). Among the patients, 21.6% (8/37) required reoperation for postoperative complications. Overall, 54% of patients (20/37) suffered from intra- or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Shoulder implant replacement improved function in the present series, but with a high rate of complications and reoperations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case-control study without control group.

Does exchange arthroplasty of an infected shoulder prosthesis provide better eradication rate and better functional outcome, compared to a permanent spacer or resection arthroplasty? a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic shoulder infections has not been established, with a lack of randomised comparative studies. This systematic review compares the infection eradication rate and functional outcomes after single- or two-stage shoulder exchange arthroplasty, to permanent spacer implant or resection arthroplasty.

METHODS

Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2000 to June 2014, identified through international databases, such as EMBASE and PubMed, were reviewed. Those reporting the success rate of infection eradication after a single-stage exchange, two-stage exchange, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and sample size of 5 patients were included.

RESULTS

Eight original articles reporting the results after resection arthroplasty (n = 83), 6 on single-stage exchange (n = 75), 13 on two-stage exchange (n = 142) and 8 papers on permanent spacer (n = 68) were included. The average infection eradication rate was 86.7 % at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months (SD 20.8) after resection arthroplasty, 94.7 % at 46.8 months (SD 17.6) after a single-stage exchange, 90.8 % at 37.9 months (SD 12.8) after two-stage exchange, and 95.6 % at 31.0 months (SD 9.8) following a permanent spacer implant. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.650). Regarding functional outcome, patients treated with single-stage exchange had statistically significant better postoperative Constant scores (mean 51, SD 13) than patients undergoing a two-stage exchange (mean 44, SD 9), resection arthroplasty (mean 32, SD 7) or a permanent spacer implant (mean 31, SD 9) (p = 0.029). However, when considering studies comparing pre- and post-operative Constant scores, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review failed to demonstrate a clear difference in infection eradication and functional improvement between all four treatment modalities for established periprosthetic shoulder infection. The relatively low number of patients and the methodological limitations of the studies available point out the need for well designed multi-center trials to further assess the best treatment option of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection.

High Rates of Occult Infection After Shoulder Fracture Fixation: Considerations for Conversion Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Existing hardware may contribute to increased risk of bacterial contamination and subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in conversion shoulder arthroplasty performed for failed fracture fixation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This study examined the incidence of positive pre-operative aspiration and inflammatory marker data, along with correlation of pre-operative positive aspiration or inflammatory markers and subsequent infection following conversion shoulder arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and the need for re-operation at 4.6-year follow-up.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients who underwent conversion to shoulder arthroplasty for any reason after fracture fixation were retrospectively reviewed in a single center. A pre-operative aspiration was done in 17 patients; all patients had intra-operative tissue sampling. All procedures were single-stage removal of hardware and performance of the arthroplasty. In cases of pre-operative positive bacterial growth, a single-stage procedure was performed according to the septic ENDO-Klinik protocol.

RESULTS

In 4 of 17 pre-operative joint aspirations, bacterial growth was detected; one pre-operative negative aspiration demonstrated bacterial growth in intra-operative sampling. In three of them, the infection has been validated through intra-operatively results. Pre-operative aspiration showed a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 92% (p < 0.005) for infection. No post-operative PJIs were observed. Six revisions were performed, most commonly for aseptic loosening (two cases) and conversion of hemiarthroplasty to a reverse design (two cases).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the risk of low-grade shoulder infection after fracture osteosynthesis may be higher than in hip and knee joints, based on limited study data. Adequate pre-operative testing is recommended to rule out occult shoulder infection in this setting.

Functional outcomes after shoulder resection: the patient's perspective

BACKGROUND

Resection arthroplasty is a salvage procedure used for the treatment of deep-seated infections after total shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Previous studies have reported a 50% to 66% rate of pain relief after resection arthroplasty but with significant functional limitations. Our study aimed to qualify the perspective of the patients on their limitations and satisfaction with resection arthroplasty.

METHODS

A retrospective record review of resection arthroplasties performed between September 2003 and December 2012 yielded 14 patients, and 7 completed the survey. The patients completed surveys with the focus on the "patient perspective." Functional scores, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), DASH work, and DASH sports, were determined.

RESULTS

Pain reduction and functional outcomes were similar to past reports of resection arthroplasty. Five of the 7 patients (71%) reported satisfaction with their resection arthroplasty, and 6 of the 7 patients (86%) would undergo the procedure again if given the choice. Five of the 7 patients (71%) were able to most of activities of daily living.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in our study were generally satisfied with their resection arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty is a reasonable option for treatment of deep-seated periprosthetic infections or for patients with multiple previous failed procedures for total shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty. and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Leukocyte esterase in the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection

BACKGROUND

Shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult to diagnose with traditional methods. Leukocyte esterase (LE) has recently proven to be reliable in knee arthroplasty; however, its value in the shoulder has not been explored. We hypothesized that LE would display high sensitivity and specificity in shoulder PJI.

METHODS

Two groups were prospectively evaluated: 45 primary and 40 revision shoulder arthroplasties. Synovial fluid and soft tissue cultures were obtained at surgery. Synovial fluid was evaluated with LE test strips. Any aspiration that contained erythrocytes was centrifuged and retested. Shoulder PJI was defined by modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria.

RESULTS

Of 5 primaries with positive tissue cultures (11%), only 1 was positive for LE. Of 16 revisions with positive cultures (40%), 4 had positive LE results. Among all patients with bacterial isolates, 6 aspirates were not interpretable (29%), despite centrifugation. LE had sensitivity of 25% and specificity of 75% to predict positive cultures in revisions. Ten revision patients met modified MSIS criteria for PJI. The sensitivity of LE in these patients was 30%, and the specificity was 67% (positive predictive value, 43%; negative predictive value, 83%). If bloody aspirates were considered positive, LE sensitivity in MSIS PJI increased to 60%, but the positive predictive value fell to 37.5%.

CONCLUSION

LE is an unreliable diagnostic measure in shoulder PJI. The presence of erythrocytes within aspirates further decreased its accuracy. We conclude that LE should not be used for the routine identification of shoulder PJI.

A clinical perspective on musculoskeletal infection treatment strategies and challenges

Orthopaedic implants improve the quality of life of patients, but the risk of postoperative surgical site infection poses formidable challenges for clinicians. Future directions need to focus on prevention and treatment of infections associated with common arthroplasty procedures, such as the hip, knee, and shoulder, and nonarthroplasty procedures, including trauma, foot and ankle, and spine. Novel prevention methods, such as nanotechnology and the introduction of antibiotic-coated implants, may aid in the prevention and early treatment of periprosthetic joint infections with goals of improved eradication rates and maintaining patient mobility and satisfaction.

Results of 30 reverse shoulder prostheses for revision of failed hemi- or total shoulder arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Revision surgery for shoulder prosthesis remains a difficult task in shoulder surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of a series of 30 reverse shoulder prostheses performed as revision of failed hemi- or total shoulder arthroplasty. The most relevant technical points in surgery are described, as are other surgical options; a rational strategy for the treatment of these patients is proposed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients (average age 69.5) were included. Mean follow-up was 36.4 months (range 24-100 months). There were 14 patients in group 1 (Delta III) and 16 in group 2 (Reverse Arrow).

RESULTS

A total of 83% were satisfied (16 cases) or very satisfied (9 cases), and 17% were disappointed (5 patients). The mean Constant score increased from a mean of 25-52. The mean score for pain improved from 5 (range 0-15) to 13 (range 5-15) (p < 0.001). The mean score of strength improved from 1 (range 0-6) to 5 (range 0-10) (p < 0.001). The forward elevation changed from a mean of 55° (range 0-120) to 108° (range 40-160) (p < 0.001). There was no significant improvement of external rotation at 0° abduction (range 14°-18°) or internal rotation (range 5-4.63). There were 4 scapular notching. We could not find the influence of scapular notching on Constant Score. Complication rate was 26.6%.

CONCLUSION

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis represents an available option in difficult cases of failed hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty when the rotator cuff is irreparable and the glenoid bone stock is sufficient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Diagnosis and Management of Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections

➤ The unique bacterial flora of the shoulder present diagnostic and treatment challenges that are distinct from those seen with failed hip and knee arthroplasties.➤ The presentation, diagnosis, and management of suppurative periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder are similar to those of the hip and the knee.➤ Failed arthroplasties with positive cultures (FAPCs) are poorly performing shoulder reconstructions associated with low-virulence microorganisms that do not evoke a suppurative inflammatory response. Propionibacterium acnes is the predominant bacterium isolated from these cases.➤ With improved surgeon awareness and the addition of longer tissue-culture incubation times, detection of FAPCs has become more common. However, management is hampered by the lack of reliable, timely tests that can determine the presence of less virulent organisms in the preoperative or intraoperative settings.➤ The implications of positive culture results in FAPCs are unclear. Key test characteristics such as the false-positive rate and the prevalence of positive cultures in well-performing shoulders are unknown as there is no useful confirmatory test to validate the culture data and no reliable way to detect the presence of less virulent microorganisms without reoperation.➤ Soft-tissue and osseous deficits are frequently encountered when revising previously infected shoulders. The rate of complications in these scenarios is high, and the outcomes are the least favorable compared with revisions for any other indication.➤ The development of a consensus definition of a periprosthetic shoulder infection is critical to future investigations of these devastating complications.

Management of failed metal-backed glenoid component in patients with bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is successful in providing pain relief and functional improvements for patients with shoulder arthritis. Outcomes are directly correlated with implant position and fixation, which ultimately affects wear and longevity. Metal-backed glenoid components were introduced as an alternative to the standard cemented glenoid fixation. Early loosening and cavitary glenoid bone loss has been reported as a major complication associated with these metal-backed glenoids, which presents the surgeon with a challenging revision situation. Furthermore, failure of bilateral TSA in patients with metal-backed glenoids is extremely rare. We present two patients with early failure of bilateral TSA secondary to loosening of the metal-backed glenoids. Both patients had significant glenoid bone loss and were treated with four different types of revision techniques. A description of treatments and outcomes of both patients are reported along with the simple shoulder test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. One patient underwent revision to bilateral reverse prosthesis and experienced a much-improved outcome in comparison to the patient revised to a hemiarthroplasty and resection arthroplasty, for each shoulder respectively. In patients who present with failed TSA, revision to a reverse prosthesis with or without staged glenoid bone graft should be considered as an option of treatment. It is also important to rule out infection with intraoperative tissue biopsy before proceeding to revision surgery. However, in patients with catastrophic glenoid bone loss, both hemiarthroplasty and resection arthroplasty can provide an alternative treatment option, but they are associated with a poorer functional outcome and pain relief.

Immediate cementless hemiarthroplasty for severe destructive glenohumeral tuberculous arthritis

The glenohumeral joint tuberculosis (TB) is rare as compared with other joints. Plaster immobilization, arthrodesis, and resection arthroplasty have been proposed as the additional treatments with anti-TB medications in severe destructive arthritis. To our knowledge, however, the surgical treatment with shoulder arthroplasty has never been reported. We present two cases of active TB with unsalvageable glenohumeral joint. The cementless hemishoulder arthroplasties were performed immediately following the radical debridement. Anti-TB medications were given for 12 months after the surgery. Postoperatively, the patients were satisfied with the rapid symptomatic relief and significant functional recovery. With the follow-up period of 5 years, the operative results were still satisfactory and the reactivation of the infection was not detected.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection

Shoulder arthroplasty is considered the most effective surgical procedure for endstage shoulder pain from different causes including osteoarthritis, cuff-tear arthropathy, trauma, and tumors. Although uncommon and less frequent than knee or hip periprosthetic infection, periprosthetic shoulder infection represents a devastating complication and, despite treatment, is associated with unsatisfactory results. The most commonly identified microorganisms in periprosthetic shoulder infections are Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Propionibacterium acnes. Diagnosis is not always easy and mainly derives from the integration of clinical symptoms, laboratory exams, radiological studies and microbiological swabs. Different options are available for treatment, including antibiotic therapy, lavage and debridement with retention of the prosthesis, one-stage reimplantation, two-stage reimplantation with antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and resection arthroplasty. The aim of this review is to describe the current knowledge regarding risk factors, etiology, diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

A preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer for treatment for septic arthritis of the shoulder

BACKGROUND

Total shoulder arthroplasty infections are rare, depending on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, the local blood supply, the axial load gradient and the proximal location of the shoulder. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of treatment for infections in total shoulder arthroplasty and septic arthritis using a preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven shoulders in as many patients were treated for infected arthroplasty or septic arthritis without previous surgery. A preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer was always applied. Patients were evaluated at the final follow-up with the Constant Score (CS), the Secec Elbow Score (SES), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (ASESS).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 40, 71 months after spacer implant. Infection was always confirmed preoperatively by the leukocyte and neutrophil counts in the aspirated synovial fluid, and intra-operative biopsy and pathologic analysis. Positive bacterial cultures were found in 5 cases: 3 MRSA and 2 Staphylococcus epidermidis. The mean SES increased from 34.43 before spacer implant to 77.29 at final follow-up, ASESS ranged from 14.86 to 21.14, and CS from 40.28 to 79.14.

CONCLUSION

A preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer is intended to release gentamicin alone, but we can consider adding vancomycin to increase antibiotic spectrum. An early diagnosis and an immediate treatment can prevent a persistent infection and severe soft-tissue damage. The use of a preformed antibiotic spacer allows maintaining joint function at the intermediate stage in two-stage treatment.

Single-stage revision for peri-prosthetic shoulder infection

There have been only a few small studies of patients with an infected shoulder replacement treated with a single-stage exchange procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients (19 men and 16 women) with a peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder who were treated in this way. A total of 26 were available for clinical examination; three had died, two were lost to follow-up and four patients had undergone revision surgery. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (1.1 to 13.25), with an infection-free survival of 94%.

The organisms most commonly isolated intra-operatively were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes; two patients developed a recurrent infection. Three different types of prosthesis were used: a hemiarthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and reverse prosthesis. The mean Constant-Murley score at final follow-up was 43.3 (14 to 90) for patients with a hemiarthroplasty, 56 (40 to 88) for those with a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and 61 (7 to 90) for those with a reverse prosthesis. The mean hospital stay was 10.6 days (5 to 29).

Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:391–5.

Resection arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

As shoulder arthroplasty becomes more common, the number of failed arthroplasties requiring revision is expected to increase. When revision arthroplasty is not feasible, resection arthroplasty has been used in an attempt to restore function and relieve pain. Although outcomes data for resection arthroplasty exist, studies comparing the outcomes after the removal of different primary shoulder arthroplasties have been limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter review of 26 patients who underwent resection arthroplasty for failure of a primary arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 41.8 months (range, 12-130 months). Resection arthroplasty was performed for 6 failed total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs), 7 failed hemiarthroplasties, and 13 failed reverse TSAs.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent resection arthroplasty demonstrated significant improvement in visual analog scale pain score (6 ± 4 preoperatively to 3 ± 2 postoperatively). Mean active forward flexion and mean active external rotation decreased, but this difference was not significant. Subgroup analysis revealed that postoperative mean active forward flexion was significantly greater in patients undergoing resection arthroplasty after failed TSA than after reverse TSA (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection arthroplasty is effective in relieving pain, but patients have poor postoperative function. Patients with resection arthroplasty for failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty have worse function than those with failed hemiarthroplasty or TSA. Surgeons should be aware of this when assessing postoperative function. There is no difference in functional outcome between hemiarthroplasty and TSA.

Management of deep infection after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case series

BACKGROUND

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is being increasingly used in the treatment of disabling shoulder conditions. This study reports the management of deep infections after RSA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight of 138 patients were treated for deep infection after the index procedure. A retrospective review was performed to identify risk factors, methods of management, and determine ultimate outcome. A minimum of 12-month follow-up was available in 7 of 8 patients.

RESULTS

Six infections occurred in patients who had had previous shoulder surgery. The causative bacterial organism was identified in 6 patients. Deep infection occurred in 3 patients with diabetes mellitus. Antibiotic cement was used in all cases. Six patients were managed with irrigation and debridement and retention of components. Two patients with of Staphylococcus aureus infection ultimately required resection arthroplasty. Patients managed with irrigation and debridement, intravenous antibiotics, and retention of components demonstrated good pain relief and function, without evidence of radiographic loosening. Resection resulted in pain relief but poor functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Limited literature is available regarding the management of deep infection in patients with RSA. Component removal after a RSA creates increased bone loss due to a cemented humeral component and glenoid baseplate with several large screws. Five of 7 patients with deep infection had undergone previous shoulder surgery. We recommend that patients should be managed with an initial irrigation and debridement, appropriate intravenous antibiotics, and component retention.

What treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection? Results from a multicentre retrospective series

PURPOSE

Controversy still exists as to the best surgical treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infections. The aim of this multi-institutional study was to review a continuous retrospectiveseries of patients treated in four European centres and to assess the respective eradication rate of various treatment approaches.

METHODS

Forty-four patients were available for this retrospective follow-up evaluation. Functional and clinical evaluation of treatment for infection was performed using the Constant-Murley score, visual analogue scale and patient satisfaction Neer score. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum leucocyte count and C-reactive protein were measured and shoulder X-ray examination performed prior to surgery and at the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 41 months (range 24–98),42 of 44 patients (95.5%) showed no signs of infection recurrence/persistence. Comparable eradication rates were observed after resection arthroplasty (100%; 6/6), two-stage revision (17/17) or permanent antibiotic-loaded spacer implant (93.3%; 14/15). No patient was treated by one-stage revision. On average, both functional and pain scores improved significantly; the worst joint function was observed after resection arthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis conducted on the largest published series of patients to date shows comparable infection eradication rates after two-stage revision, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant for the treatment of septic shoulder prosthesis.

Resection arthroplasty of the shoulder as a salvage procedure for deep shoulder infection: does the use of a cement spacer improve outcome?

HYPOTHESIS

Resection arthroplasty can be performed for recalcitrant shoulder infection. It is unclear whether a spacer has any benefit. We hypothesized that spacers would increase infection control and improve clinical results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients were evaluated retrospectively at a mean follow-up of 46.4 months: 11 patients did not receive a spacer (group A), and 10 patients did receive a spacer (group B). Patients were assessed clinically and with radiographs. Patients were scored using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Constant-Murley Score (CMS), Simple Shoulder Test, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand.

RESULTS

Infection was eradicated in 19 patients without additional surgery. Two patients had elevated C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate and were considered to have low-grade infections. Neither patient received a spacer and had not been revised. Infectious control was not significantly different between group A and group B (P = .48). Fourteen patients found the result good or acceptable. The VAS decreased from 6.5 to 2.6. The CMS increased significantly from 17.8 to 40.4. Active abduction averaged 78.1° and active flexion averaged 85.5°. External rotation was 21.0°.

DISCUSSION

No significant difference was shown between group A and group B. Preservation of the tuberosities was identified as a prognosticator for a good result. Unacceptable pain resulted in 5 patients with a spacer undergoing delayed reimplantation of a prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Resection arthroplasty can be offered to patients with long-standing deep shoulder infection that was unresponsive to previous surgical treatment. Control of infection did not differ significantly between the groups. No improvement in outcome was demonstrated with the use of cement spacers.

Two-stage reimplantation for treating prosthetic shoulder infections

BACKGROUND

Two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection reportedly has the lowest risk for recurrent infection. Most studies to date have evaluated revision surgery for infection using an anatomic prosthetic. As compared with anatomic prostheses, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is reported to have a higher rate of infection.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined reinfection rates, functional improvement, types and rates of complications, and influence of rotator cuff tissue on function for two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients treated with a two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic shoulder infection using a uniform protocol for management of infection; of these, 17 had reverse shoulder arthroplasty at second-stage surgery. Types of organisms cultured, recurrence rates, complications, function, and radiographic followup were reviewed for all patients.

RESULTS

One of the 17 patients had recurrence of infection. The mean (± SD) Penn shoulder scores for patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty improved from 24.9 ± 22.3 to 66.4 ± 20.8. The average motion at last followup was 123° ± 33° of forward flexion and 26° ± 8° of external rotation in patients treated with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The major complication rate was 35% in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, with five dislocations and one reinfection. There was no difference in final Penn score between patients with and without external rotation weakness.

CONCLUSIONS

Shoulder function and pain improved in patients treated with a second-stage reimplantation of a reverse prosthesis and the reinfection rate was low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.