Infected total hip arthroplasty revision: one- or two-stage procedure?

Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review

Prosthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.

Do one-stage indications predict success following two-stage arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection?

Introduction: The 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) proposed criteria for one-stage exchange arthroplasty in treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to determine what proportion of PJI patients met the 2018 ICM criteria and how this affected infection-free survivorship for patients. Methods: All chronic PJI patients treated with two-stage exchange within our institution between 2017-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included cases met 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI and had a 2-year minimum follow-up. Treatment success was defined as Tier 1A in the 2019 MSIS working group definition. ICM one-stage criteria included non-immunocompromised host, absence of sepsis, adequate soft tissue for closure, known preoperative pathogen, and susceptibility. Immunocompromised host was analyzed as two separate definitions. Kaplan-Meier survivorship, Cox regression, and univariate analyses were performed. Results: A total of 293 chronic PJI patients were included. Overall, treatment failure occurred in 64 / 293 (21.8 %) patients. Only 13 % (n = 37 ) met ICM criteria definition no. 1 for one-stage exchange; 12 % (n = 33 ) met definition no. 2. In both definitions, infection-free survivorship at 2 years did not differ between patients who met and did not meet criteria (p > 0.05 ). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses demonstrated that the only variable predicting treatment failure was knee joint involvement (p = 0.01 ). Conclusions: We found that a very limited number of chronic PJI patients were suitable for a one-stage exchange. Furthermore, the supposition that healthier hosts with known pathogens (the basis of the ICM criteria) yield better PJI treatment outcomes was not observed. These results justify the ongoing multicenter randomized control trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage treatment for chronic PJI.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.

Corynebacterium striatum Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection: An Uncommon Pathogen of Concern?

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty is indubitably a dominant elective surgery in orthopaedics, contributing to prodigious improvement in the quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis. One of the most potentially devastating complications of this operation is periprosthetic joint infection. Immunocompromised patients might be afflicted by infrequent low-virulence organisms not typically detected with conventional procedures. Consequently, employing advanced identification methods, such as the circumstantial sonication of orthopaedic implants, could be crucial to managing such cases.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a peculiar case of a 72-year-old female patient suffering from a chronic periprosthetic hip infection due to Corynebacterium striatum. The pathogen was only identified after rigorous sonication of the extracted implants. The overall management of this case was immensely exacting, primarily because of the patient's impaired immune system, and was finally treated with two-stage revision in our Institution.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although copious literature exists concerning managing periprosthetic hip infections, no concrete guidelines are available for such infections in multimorbid or immunocompromised patients with rare low-virulence microorganisms. Hence, a diagnostic work-up, antibiotic treatment and appropriate revision timeline must be determined. Sonication of extracted implants could be a powerful tool in the diagnostic arsenal, as it can aid in identifying rare microbes, such as Corynebacterium spp. Pertinent antibiotic treatment based on antibiogram analysis and apposite final revision-surgery timing are the pillars for effective therapy of such infections.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Corynebacterium striatum has been increasingly recognized as an emerging cause of periprosthetic hip infection in the last decade. A conspicuous rise in such reports has been observed in multimorbid or immunocompromised patients after the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is the first report of Corynebacterium striatum periprosthetic hip infection diagnosed solely after the sonication of extracted implants. This paper aims to increase awareness surrounding Corynebacterium spp. prosthetic joint infections, while highlighting the fields for further apposite research.

Staged Revision Hip Arthroplasty With Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting for Prosthetic Joint Infections: Radiostereometric Analyses and Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

There are ongoing concerns regarding the use of bone graft following prosthetic joint infection and subsequent implant subsidence. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a cemented stem combined with femoral impaction bone grafting (FIBG) at second stage revision for infection results in stable femoral stem fixation, determined by accurate methods, and good clinical results.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 29 patients underwent staged revision total hip arthroplasty for infection using an interval prosthesis followed by FIBG at the final reconstruction. The mean follow-up was 89 months (range, 8 to 167 months). Femoral implant subsidence was measured with radiostereometric analysis. Clinical outcomes included the Harris Hip Score, Harris Pain score and Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie activity scores.

RESULTS

At 2-years follow-up the median stem subsidence relative to femur was -1.36 mm (range, -0.31 to -4.98), while the cement subsidence relative to femur was -0.05 mm (range, 0.36 to -0.73). At 5-years follow-up, the median stem subsidence relative to femur was -1.89 mm (range, -0.27 to -6.35), while the cement subsidence relative to femur was -0.06 mm (range, 0.44 to -0.55). There were 25 patients who were confirmed infection-free after the second stage revision with FIBG. The median Harris Hip Score improved from 51 pre-operatively to 79 at 5 years (P = .0130), and Harris Pain score from 20 to 40 (P = .0038).

CONCLUSIONS

Stable femoral component fixation can be achieved with FIBG when reconstructing the femur after revision for infection without compromising infection cure rates and patient-reported outcomes.

Early Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) Treated with Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention (DAIR): Inferior Outcomes in Patients with Staphylococci Resistant to Rifampicin

It is unknown how rifampicin resistance in staphylococci causing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects outcomes after debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). We thus aimed to compare the risk of relapse in DAIR-treated early PJI caused by staphylococci with or without rifampicin resistance. In total, 81 patients affected by early PJI were included, and all patients were treated surgically with DAIR. This was repeated if needed. The endpoint of relapse-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression models were fitted to assess the risk of infection relapse for patients infected with rifampicin-resistant bacteria, adjusted for age, sex, type of joint, and type of index surgery. In patients with rifampicin-resistant staphylococci, relapse was seen in 80% after one DAIR procedure and in 70% after two DAIR procedures. In patients with rifampicin-sensitive bacteria, 51% had an infection relapse after one DAIR procedure and 33% had an infection relapse after two DAIR procedures. Patients with rifampicin-resistant staphylococcal PJI thus had an increased adjusted risk of infection relapse of 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-3.6, p = 0.04) after one DAIR procedure compared to patients with rifampicin-sensitive bacteria and a 4.1-fold (95% CI: 1.2-14.1, p = 0.03) increase in risk of infection relapse after two DAIR procedures. Staphylococcal resistance to rifampicin is associated with inferior outcomes after DAIR. These findings suggest that DAIR may not be a useful strategy in early PJI caused by rifampicin-resistant staphylococci.

Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in One-Stage Revision of Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Total knee replacement (TKA) is becoming a routine procedure in orthopedic surgery. One of the possible complications of this surgery is periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to identify, through a literature review, which antibiotic is used as prophylaxis for septic one-stage revision TKA and what is the rationale for its use.

METHODS

We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO on Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and the Google Scholar Database. The searches were limited by date (January 2005 to September 2022) and to the English language. All types of original research were considered, including prospective or retrospective longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized trials. The specific search terms were ((antibiotic [MeSH]) AND (prophylaxis)) and (TKA OR TKR OR "Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee" [MeSH] OR ((knee) adj2 (replace* OR arthroplasty* OR prosthe*))).

RESULTS

Despite our research efforts, we found no article capable of answering the question of which antibiotic to use as surgical prophylaxis for a septic revision one-stage TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the research results are inconclusive, we would recommend using the same antibiotic prophylaxis as for primary joint replacement, i.e., cefazolin, as it was recommended for its low side effect rate and relative effectiveness.

Functional Outcome after Reimplantation in Patients Treated with and without an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers for Hip Prosthetic Joint Infections

Purpose

A staged revision with placement of a temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer after removal of the implant is the "gold standard" for treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI). It enables local delivery of antibiotics, maintenance of limb-length and mobility, easier reimplantation. However, bacterial colonization of spacers and mechanical complications can also occur. The aim of this study is to evaluate functional results and infection control in two-stage treatment of total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI with and without a spacer.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective review of 64 consecutive patients was conducted: 34 underwent two-stage revision using a cement spacer (group A), 30 underwent two-stage revision without a spacer (group B). At the final follow-up, functional evaluation of patients with a THA in site, without PJI recurrence, was performed using the Harris hip score (HHS). Measurement of limb-length and off-set discrepancies was performed using anteroposterior pelvic X-rays.

Results

Most patients in group B were older with more comorbidities preoperatively. Thirty-three patients (97.1%) in group A underwent THA reimplantation versus 22 patients (73.3%) in group B (P<0.001). No significant differences in limb-length and off-set were observed. The results of functional evaluation performed during the final follow-up (mean, 41 months) showed better function in patients in group A (mean HHS, 76.3 vs. 55.9; P<0.001).

Conclusion

The use of antibiotic-loaded cement spacer seems superior in terms of functional outcomes and reimplantation rate. Resection arthroplasty might be reserved as a first-stage procedure in patients who are unfit, who might benefit from a definitive procedure.

Rheumatoid Arthritis-Linked Artificial Joint Infections Leading to Amputations

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune condition that can rarely cause more serious complications, such as permanent joint damage or infection, and may pose a significant additional risk during certain routine procedures. One major consequence of RA is that it can lead to serious and permanent joint damage requiring arthroplasty. Additionally, RA is a known cause of infection, with orthopedic prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being documented. We explore one such serious case of a patient with long-term RA and a left knee joint replacement who presented to the emergency room with a serious PJI. History revealed that he repeatedly was affected by infections and had an extensive and severe clinical course, including nine revision surgeries. After a physical examination, imaging was performed, which further supported the diagnosis of joint infection. Considering the extensive number of attempts to salvage the joint, clinicians decided an above-knee amputation was necessary. This case highlights the fact that RA both increases the need for orthopedic arthroplasties and the risk of complications from these procedures, complicating clinical decision-making for physicians. Additionally, this patient had other underlying medical conditions and social habits that may have contributed to his severe clinical course, and we hope to explore these, discuss possible methods of modifying them, and assist clinicians in not only better treating similar patients but also emphasizing the importance of further developing standardized predictive algorithms and scoring tools.

Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7-8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9-9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0-19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7-19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias.

CONCLUSION

The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

Diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infection after hip replacement (a review)

Introduction. The frequency of hip arthroplasty is steadily increasing throughout the world and, although this operation has become routine, the likelihood of postoperative complications reaches 4.3 % [1]. The most dangerous of them are infectious lesions in the area of the endoprosthesis and adjacent tissues. At the same time, in addition to the threat of generalization of the infectious process, there are functional disorders in the joint area and a general deterioration in the quality of life of the patient. Timely diagnosis and treatment of the infectious process and related disorders can minimize the adverse effects of infection.

Target. The purpose of this review is to analyze modern methods for diagnosing and treating periprosthetic infection resulting from hip replacement.

Materials and methods. The subject literature was searched using the PubMed and Google Sholar databases.

Results. The main methods for diagnosing periprosthetic infection include histological and bacteriological examination of the biopsy specimen, determination of sensitivity to antibiotics, blood, and synovial fluid analysis for the content of leukocytes, IL-6, CRP, PCR diagnostics of infectious agents. Treatment consists of re-intervention and/or antibiotic therapy.

Conclusion. The most optimal method for diagnosing periprosthetic infection is a bacteriological study of biopsy specimens taken intraoperatively. The preferred method of treatment is determined by the severity of the infection, the degree of involvement of tissues adjacent to the prosthesis, the comorbid background, the nature of the infectious agent, and includes repeated revision surgery.

Is two-stage revision surgery for infected hip arthroplasty worth the suffering, resources and results compared to one-stage?

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of total hip arthroplasty. The treatment is usually revision in either 1 or 2 stages. This study analyses revision with impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and compares 1- and 2-stage strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed 55 consecutive cases (54 patients) of revision arthroplasty for PJI carried out at our hospital between 2002 and 2016. Of these, 46 were 2-stage procedures. 21 had vancomycin mixed in with the bone graft, and all had gentamycin-containing bone cement. The total perioperative blood loss, duration of operation, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Clinical and radiological results were analysed for 48 hips at 2-16 years follow-up.

RESULTS

No PJI remained at follow-up. 3 patients (6%) had undergone revision for all causes. 1 had radiological signs of mechanical loosening but was not revised. 2-stage procedures had a significantly longer operating time (409 vs. 238 min) and hospital stay (34 vs. 13 days), greater blood loss (2764 vs. 1638 ml), and lower mean functional hip score (15.9 vs. 17.5) at follow-up than the one-stage procedures.

INTERPRETATION

Revision total hip arthroplasty for PJI with vancomycin-loaded impaction bone grafting is a safe method that achieves both the restoration of bone stock and resolution of the infection. This single-stage procedure could therefore be the new gold standard for treatment of non-complicated PJI in the hip.

Outcomes and Risk Factors Associated With Failures of Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention in Patients With Acute Hematogenous Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) accounts for 20% to 35% of all PJI cases. Treatment options include débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) or implant revision (single-stage/two-stage revision). Because the reported success rates of DAIR for acute PJIs as reported in the literature varies widely, this study aimed to investigate (1) the outcome of DAIR as revision surgery procedure and (2) the potential risk factors for treatment failure of DAIR in patients with acute hematogenous PJI.

METHODS

We reviewed 106 consecutive cases of total joint arthroplasty patients who underwent DAIR for the diagnosis of acute hematogenous PJI. Outcomes of the cohort including infection free survival was investigated. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Demographics, case data, comorbidities, and extremity score were analyzed by univariate and multivariate regressions to identify risk factors for failure of DAIR.

RESULTS

The failure rate of patients who underwent DAIR was 23.6% (25 of 106 patients). Univariate regression demonstrated that diabetes mellitus (P = 0.01) and polymicrobial infections (P < 0.01) are associated with failure of DAIR. Multivariate regression confirmed diabetes mellitus and polymicrobial infections as independent risk factors for failure of DAIR.

DISCUSSION

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention may be a viable treatment option with moderate failure rates at the midterm follow-up in cases of acute hematogenous PJI. The study also identified diabetes mellitus and polymicrobial infections as independent risk factors for failure of DAIR. The findings of this study provide clinically useful information for surgeons in treatment of patients with acute hematogenous PJI.

Long-term outcome of two-stage revision surgery after hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: an observational study

Introduction: Two-stage revision surgery is the most frequently performed procedure in patients with a chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The infection eradication rates in the current literature differ between 54 % and 100 %, which could be attributed to different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the infection eradication rate in patients with chronic PJI treated with two-stage revision surgery of the hip or knee in primary and re-revision cases. Methods: All patients treated with a two-stage revision for chronic PJI between 2005 and 2011 were analysed. Patient and infection characteristics were retrieved. Primary outcome was successful infection eradication at last follow-up. Successful eradication is specified as no need for subsequent revision surgery or suppressive antibiotic treatment. Results: Forty-seven patients were treated with a two-stage revision. Infection eradication was achieved in 36 out of 47 cases. Thirty-eight patients had positive cultures: 35 monomicrobial infections and 3 polymicrobial infections. Nine cases of culture-negative infections were identified. Accompanying eradication rates were 26 out of 35 cases, 2 out of 3 cases, and 8 out of 9 cases respectively. Mean follow-up was 128 (27–186) months. For hip and knee revisions the eradication rates were 22 out of 31 cases and 14 out of 16 cases respectively. After primary arthroplasty the infection was eradicated in 29 out of 38 cases and after re-revision in 7 out of 9 cases. Conclusion: In this study, the infection eradication rate for two-stage revision surgery after PJI of the hip and knee in primary and re-revision cases was 77 %. No statistically significant patient, infection and micro-organism characteristics were found which influence the infection eradication rates at long-term follow-up of 128 (27–186) months.

Comparison of patient reported outcome measures after single versus two-stage revision for chronic infection of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage revision is the current gold standard treatment for infected total hip arthroplasties (THA) with good clinical outcomes. Single-stage revision THA offers the advantage of only a single surgical intervention, potentially leading to improved functional outcomes. This study aimed to compare the differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications between single and two-stage revision THA for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

A total of 159 consecutive revision THA patients for chronic PJI with complete pre-and post-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) was investigated. A total of 46 patients with single-stage revision THA was matched to 92 patients following two-stage revision THA using propensity score matching, yielding a total of 136 propensity score-matched patients for analysis.

RESULTS

Single and two-stage revision THA improved PROM scores post-operatively, with significantly higher PROMs for single-stage revision THA (HOOS-PS: 50.7 vs 46.4, p = 0.04; Physical SF 10A: 42.1 vs 36.6, p < 0.001; PROMIS SF Physical: 41.4 vs 37.4, p < 0.001; PROMIS SF Mental: 52.8 vs 47.6, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both cohorts for reinfection rates (p = 0.81) and 90-day mortality rates (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

This study found a demonstrable functional benefit of single-stage revision compared to two-stage revision for THA with chronic periprosthetic joint infection, suggesting that single-stage revision THA may provide an effective alternative to two-stage revision in selected patients with chronic PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Risk factors for mortality following one-stage septic hip arthroplasty - a case-control study

PURPOSE

Despite good clinical outcomes and a high success rate, there is a comparatively high mortality after one stage septic exchange of total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for mortality in the hospitalization period after one-stage septic exchange of THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed in our database all patients who had a one-stage septic exchange for periprosthetic infection of THA and died during hospitalization (n = 33). The control group was matched semi-randomly by surgical procedure (n = 121) who did not die during hospitalization. The two groups were analyzed for risk factors such as age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and high-/low-virulence bacteria.

RESULTS

In the deceased group, 16 patients were female and 17 were male with a mean age at surgery of 73.2 years. In the control group, there were 55 females and 66 males with an average age at surgery of 68.2 years. Comparing the two groups, the deceased group had a significantly higher proportion of liver disease as well as higher rate of pulmonary embolism, apoplexy, and/or myocardial infarction, an increased CCI with an average of 6.5 and advanced age. Further demographic and surgery-related parameters especially high- or low-virulent germs were not identified as risk factors for mortality during the hospitalization period. The binominal logistic regression analysis showed that the probability of an inpatient death following one-stage septic exchange of THA increases by a factor of 3.079, with each additional point of the CCI.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, advanced age and high CCI are the main risk factors for mortality after single-stage septic change of THA. However, high-virulence bacteria have no influence on the mortality during the hospitalization period after one-stage septic exchange of THA.

Mid-term follow-up results after implementing a new strategy for the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent one of the most serious complications associated with joint replacement surgeries, a complication also of modern orthopedic surgery despite the efforts that occurred in this field. Frequently PJIs lead to prolonged morbidity, increased costs and mortality.

METHODS

We are conducting a single-center observational cohort ongoing study in the Academic Emergency Hospital Sibiu, Romania, study in which sonication of the retrieved and as a rapid method of bacteria detection, molecular identification of bacteria by 16S rRNA beacon-based fluorescent in situ hybridization (bbFISH) are used.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were enrolled in this study. The diagnosis of aseptic loosening was established in 30 cases (49.1%) and the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection was established at 31 patients (50.8%). The mean follow-up period in the subgroup of patients diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infections was 36.06 ± 12.59 months (range: 1-54). The 25-months Kaplan-Meier survival rate as the end point, as a consequence of the period of enrollment and a different follow-up period for each type of surgical procedure, was 75% after debridement and implant retention, 91.7% after one-stage exchange, 92.3% after two-stage exchange, and 100% after three-stage exchange. There were no significant differences in survival percentage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has good results similar to previously published data. We cannot recommend one strategy of managing prosthetic joint infections over the other. Definitely, there is a need for prospective randomized controlled trials.

One-stage exchange should be avoided in periprosthetic joint infection cases with massive femoral bone loss or with history of any failed revision to treat periprosthetic joint infection

AIMS

There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247-1253.

Antibiotic Delivery via Hickman Catheter for the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection

Infection rates for total joint arthroplasty range from 1% to 2%, and infection carries significant risk. The traditional course of treatment is irrigation and debridement, but historically, success rates have been variable. The goals of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Hickman catheterization in the treatment of prosthetic joint infection and to assess its value as an alternative to irrigation and debridement. The authors retrospectively analyzed 26 Hickman catheterizations in the treatment of acute early, acute late, and chronic late infections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Initial arthroplasty procedures were performed between 2006 and 2018, with all cases followed for a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. The authors evaluated surgical data, clinical outcomes, and success rates, and they compared their success rates with reported values for cases treated with irrigation and debridement. The authors' success rate was 100% for acute early hip infection, 100% for chronic knee infection, and 80.0% for chronic hip infection. They reported a 75.0% success rate in the treatment of acute late infection for hip arthroplasty and a rate of 62.5% for knee arthroplasty. Postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved for both hips and knees for all infection types. The success rates for the treatment of acute early prosthetic joint infection and chronic late prosthetic knee infection were superior to available reported rates on irrigation and debridement. The authors also reported the highest success rate for the treatment of acute late infection. The current data suggest that Hickman catheterization is a promising safe and effective alternative to irrigation and debridement for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e395-e401.].

A comparison of short term complication rate between 44 two- and 385 one-stage septic exchange arthroplasties in chronic periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious disease with severe consequences for the patient's life. It is not known whether one-stage or two-stage replacement arthroplasty is superior. So far, there have been no studies on short-term complications between both surgical procedures. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study aiming to determine: 1) Does two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty have a higher short-term complication rate than one-stage? 2) Is there a difference in length of hospital stay and the in-hospital mortality rate between two- and one-stage septic exchange arthroplasty?

HYPOTHESIS

Two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty has a higher short-term complication rate than one-stage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospectively 429 patients who underwent a one- or two stage revision arthroplasty (288 hips and 141 knees) due to chronic PJI between January 2015 and December 2016 were recruited (one-stage: n=385, two-stage: n=44). Differences in postoperative complications, surgical therapy, ASA, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), length of hospital, need for plastic surgery, pathogen, in-hospital morbidity and in-hospital mortality were compared using multiple logistic and Poisson regression. Regarding comorbidities, age, gender and BMI the groups were comparable.

RESULTS

It was 3.5 times more likely to suffer from a medical complication if a two stage septic exchange was performed (OR 3.465, (95% CI: 2.573-4.358) [p<0.01]). In medical complications the two-stage group showed significantly more events (two-stage: 9 of 44=20.5%; one-stage: 30 of 385=7.8% [p=0.013]). The one-stage group showed more (not significant) nerve palsies after hip septic exchange. There was no difference in mortality between the groups (two-stage: 1/44=2.3%; one-stage: 3/385=0.8% [p=0.882]), the overall mortality was 0.93%. The duration of hospital stay was 23.9±19 days for the one-stage and 42.2±17.7 days for the two-stage group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We found that it is more likely to develop a medical complication after two-stage septic revision arthroplasty. There was no difference in overall surgical complications between the two surgical approaches. We did not find a significant difference in short term mortality between the two techniques, although the mortality rate was slightly higher in the two-stage group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective case control study.

Economic Study of 2-Stage Exchange in Patients With Knee or Hip Prosthetic Joint Infection Managed in a Referral Center in France: Time to Use Innovative(s) Intervention(s) at the Time of Reimplantation to Reduce the Risk of Superinfection

Objective: Chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are serious complications in arthroplasty leading to prosthesis exchange and potential significant costs for health systems, especially if a subsequent new infection occurs. This study assessed the cost of chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange at the Lyon University Hospital, CRIOAc Lyon reference center, France. A threshold analysis was then undertaken to determine the reimbursement tariff of a hypothetical preventive device usable at the time of reimplantation, which possibly enables health insurance to save money according to the risk reduction of subsequent new infection. This analysis was also performed for a potential innovative device already available on the market, a dual antibiotic loaded bone cement used to fix cemented prosthesis that releases high concentrations of gentamicin and vancomycin locally (G+V cement). Method: Patients >18 years, admitted for a hip or knee chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange, between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively identified. Following, resource consumption in relation to inpatient hospital stay, hospitalization at home, rehabilitation care, outpatient antibiotic treatments, imaging, laboratory analysis, and consultations were identified and collected from patient records and taken into account in the evaluation. Costs were assessed from the French health insurance perspective over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation. Results: The study included 116 patients (median age 67 y; 47% hip prosthesis). Mean cost of chronic PJI was estimated over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation at €21,324 for all patients, and at €51,697 and €15,745 for patients with (n = 18) and without (n = 98) a subsequent new infection after reimplantation, respectively. According to the threshold analysis the reimbursement tariff (i) should not exceed €2,820 for a device which can reduce the risk of a new infection by 50% and (ii) was between €2,988 and €3,984 if the G + V cement can reduce the risk of a new infection by 80% (this reduction risk is speculative and has to be confirmed by clinical trials). Conclusion: This study revealed that chronic PJI requiring a 2-stage revision is costly, with significant costs in relation to the reimplantation procedure (about 15 k€). However, following reimplantation the rate of subsequent new infection remained high, and the cost of reimplantation following a new infection is considerable, reaching 50k€ per patient. These first cost estimates of managing chronic PJI with 2-stage exchange in France underline the economic interest of preventing new infections.

What is the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotics following single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection? A systematic review

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 1 of the most challenging potential complications following total joint arthroplasty. Several surgical treatment strategies have been proposed for management of this diagnosis. The single-stage approach has been gaining popularity in contemporary literature. 1 fundamental aspect in the management of hip PJI is the administration of antibiotics, usually intravenously immediately after surgery, followed by a period of oral antibiotics. The optimal duration of the period of antibiotic therapy is undecided. The aim of this paper is to examine the trend in intravenous antibiotic use over the last 18 years and examine the influence this has had on the results of single-stage revision over that time period.

Results at 10-24 years after single-stage revision arthroplasty of infected total hip arthroplasty in patients under 45 years of age

INTRODUCTION

The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip is a challenging procedure. One-stage exchange is carried out in specialist centres with comparable infection free survival rates. However, there is a paucity of long-term results of this approach in young patients.

METHODS

All patients undergoing one-stage exchange due to PJI with a known causative organism ⩽45 years of age with a minimum of 10-year follow-up (mean 15 years; range 10-24 years) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients older than 45 years of age or patients with a two-stage procedure were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was failure rate with special focus on reinfection at latest follow-up. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score was determined initially and at latest follow-up. 26 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were available for final follow-up.

RESULTS

The study cohort consists of 16 male and 10 female patients with a mean age of 36.8 years (range 20-45 years) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m2 (range 20.7-40.6 kg/m2). Prior to the single-stage procedure, the patients underwent an average of 3.1 previous surgical interventions (range 1-9). The mean hospital stay after septic revision was 19.7 days (11-33 days). Most infections were caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 8, 30.8%), followed by Staph. aureus (n = 7, 26.9%) and Propionibacterium acnes (n = 6, 23.1%). At latest follow-up, the overall survival rate was 76.9 %, while infection control could be achieved in 96.2%. At final examination, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46.2 to 78.9 (range 18.0-99; SD, 22.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage revision surgery for the management of PJI in patients ⩽45 years is a successful treatment option with high infection control, even after long-term follow-up.

Borate mineral loading into acrylic bone cements to gain cost-effectivity, enhanced antibacterial resistivity, and better cellular integration properties

Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), called as bone cement, has been used in implant surgery, initially in dental practices, then in arthroplasty surgery for decades. Bone cement is a highly preferred chemical in the field of orthopedics due to its bone-like hardness and mechanical strength. Meanwhile, antibiotic-loaded cements are used in joints and similar surgeries are generally due to the risk of infection. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the effects of borate mineral loading into bone cement on enhancing the antibacterial resistivity and cell integration as well as retaining mechanical properties. Moreover, the incorporation of minerals into bone cements makes them much more cost-friendly biomaterials for surgical operations. Herein, antibacterial properties were evaluated by using vancomycin- and gentamycin-susceptible strains of Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus whereas cell viability tests were performed by osteoblast cell lines. Three sets of the bone cements, plain, calcium borate-, and sodium borate-loaded, were prepared through commercial procedures and subjected to mechanical, antibacterial and cell viability tests. Percentage deformation determined by compression tests under 0.100 MPa pressure was determined in the range of 12.58%-10.67% in respect to the amount of sodium borate mineral loaded whereas that was determined in the range of 12.54%-9.87% in respect to the amount of calcium borate mineral loaded. Micro-CT results also supported good mineral integration and structural features of the composite bone cements. Furthermore, mineral incorporation enhanced the cell viability, in other words, cellular integrity, up to 101.28% for sodium borate-loaded (NB75, 7.5 g mineral) and 72.04% for calcium borate-loaded (CB75, 7.5 g mineral) bone cement according to the negative control group, fresh culture medium. As a conclusion, both of these minerals could be classified as promising alternatives for developing bone cements with better antibacterial resistivity and cellular integration properties.

Is Preoperative Identification of the Infecting Organism Essential Before Single-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection?

BACKGROUND

It is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism.

METHODS

We identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77).

RESULTS

The reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases.

CONCLUSION

The rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.

Treatment options in PJI - is two-stage still gold standard?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful treatment for osteoarthritis with good clinical outcomes 1,2. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA has a low incidence between 0.5 and 3% but it is nevertheless one of the most dreadful complications 3-6. Two-staged revisions are considered to be the gold standard for revision in chronic PJI with infection eradication rates of over 90% 7. Recently, similar infection eradication rates after one-staged revision arthroplasty have been reported 8-10, raising the question whether the two-staged approach can still be considered the gold standard. We therefore performed a literature review to analyse the correlation of one-staged and two-staged TKA revisions with recurrent infection rates and functional outcomes. Studies concerning PJI treated by one- or two-staged revision published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved by searching the databases PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 29 studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. Mean follow-up was at 4.9 ± 2.6 years. The mean infection eradication rate after one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 87 ± 8.8% vs. 83 ± 11.7%. The functional outcome measured by the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) of one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 80 ± 5.9 vs. 80 ± 3.9 points. One-staged revision arthroplasty in TKA appears to have similar infection eradication rates and functional outcomes compared to two-staged revision arthroplasty. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since selection bias may have played a significant role. Several criteria to guide the surgeon in selecting the appropriate procedure have been described, but the current recommendations are based on poor evidence as randomized controlled trials are lacking 11,12. Two-staged revision remains a successful treatment option which is rightly the gold standard. However, there is a variety of cases in which one-staged revision is a viable alternative, where similar success rates and functional outcome can be expected 7,13.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Fistulizing Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: An Effective Strategy

Background: Prosthetic hip infection (PHI) is a disastrous scenario after an arthroplasty. International guidelines contraindicate one-stage exchange arthroplasty for fistulizing chronic prosthetic hip infection (FCPHI), nevertheless few surgical teams, mostly from Europe, support one stage procedure for this indication.

Questions/Purposes: Analysis of infection recurrence and implant failure of a series of FCPHIs treated with one stage arthroplasty.

Patients and Methods: Sixty-six FCPHIs treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty were prospectively followed up at least 2 years. Clinical, radiological and bacteriological signs suggestive of reinfection were sought, as well as implant failures and PHI related deaths.

Results: Thirty-four females and thirty-two males with median age of 69.5 years [61–77] and BMI of 26 kg/m² [22-31] were included. Fistulae were productive in 50 patients (76%). Staphylococcus was responsible for 45% of PHI and 21% were polymicrobial. Twenty-nine patients (44%) received preoperative antibiotic therapy. After a median 60-month follow-up [35–82], 3 patients (4.5%) presented reinfection (two new infections, one relapse) and 3 patients experienced implant failure (1 femoral fracture, 1 stem breakage, 1 recurrent dislocation). One death was related to PHI. After a minimum of 2 years, the infection control rate was of 95.3% (±0.02).

Conclusion: One-stage exchange arthroplasty for FCPHIs showed a good infection control rate similar to that of non-fistulizing PHI. Systematic preoperative microbiological documentation with joint aspiration and, in some specific cases, the use of preoperative antibiotic therapy are among the optimizations accounting for the success of the one-stage arthroplasty. In light of these results, and those of other studies, international recommendations could evolve.

Level of Evidence: Descriptive therapeutic prospective cohort study. Level of evidence: IV.

Prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty caused by Sneathia sanguinegens: A case report (CARE-complaint)

INTRODUCTION

Sneathia sanguinegens(S sanguinegens) is a gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium mostly reported to cause a perinatal infection, and there are no reports of S sanguinegens in prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this report is to describe a very rare case of PJI after total hip arthroplasty (THA) caused by S sanguinegens.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 79-year-old woman presented with right coxalgia, inability to walk, and a fever of 39°C. She had undergone THA 28 years earlier for osteoarthritis of the hip.

DIAGNOSES

The diagnosis was acute late-onset PJI, because blood tests revealed marked inflammatory reaction and computed tomography showed an abscess at the right hip joint; synovial fluid analysis resulted in detection of a gram-negative bacillus.

INTERVENTION

Surgical debridement with retention of the implant and antibiotic therapy was performed.

OUTCOMES

One month after surgery, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay showed that the pathogen was 99.9% likely to be S sanguinegens. There has been no recurrence of infection or loosening of the implant in the 2 years since her surgery.

LESSONS

PCR should facilitate detection of previously unknown pathogens and potentially novel bacterial species.

Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee Causes High Levels of Psychosocial Distress: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of knee arthroplasty that can cause long-term disability. In addition to its physical impact, there is a clear psychological burden that has not been measured yet. We hypothesized that the psychosocial burden of PJI can be assessed quantitatively using standardized questionnaires and may be correlated with treatment stage. Methods: Thirty-one patients were enrolled in this longitudinal prospective cohort study from August 2015 to November 2016. Participants had clinically established knee PJI after primary total knee replacement in osteoarthritis according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria and underwent a standardized two-stage protocol. After explantation of the prosthesis and implantation of a polymethylmethacrylate knee spacer, patients were treated with organism-specific intravenous antibiotics for two weeks, followed by oral antibiotics for four weeks; and then reimplantation was performed in all cases. Psychometrically validated standardized questionnaires were used to measure psychosocial stress via self-assessment at four time points: (1) Before explantation of the prosthesis; (2) after explantation; (3) after the antibiotic treatment before reimplantation; and (4) three months after reimplantation (follow-up). The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-4, Short Form (SF)-12 (including PSK and KSK), Questions about Life Satisfaction (FLZ^M) and Fear of Progression (PA-F-KF) (titles and abbreviations in German) scores were interpreted according to cut-off values for depression, fear of progression, anxiety, and quality of life. Results: Eighteen patients (58.1%) showed a PHQ-4 score above the cut-off value for depression at least once, with the highest score before reimplantation (time point 3). On the SF-12, the mean subtest mental scale (PSK) score was 42.6 (± 14.5), and the mean subtest physical scale (KSK) score was 26.9 (± 7.5) over the four time points, which was significantly lower than that of the general German population (PSK 53.1, KSK 44.0; p < 0.05). The SF-12 scores did not change significantly over time. On the FLZ, health was least satisfactory, followed by recreational activities and work. On the PA-F-KF, patients had the greatest fear of being dependent on outside help, drastic medical interventions, and infection progression. The mean PA-F-KF value was 31.24 (± 9.60; values ≥34 are regarded as critical). Conclusion: Peri-prosthetic joint infection is a measurable, relevant psychosocial stressor for patients. Their quality of life and fear of the disease progressing are comparable to those of oncology patients. Routine screening should be conducted to identify affected patients early for appropriate treatment, improving long-term outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons who treat patients with PJI should initiate by psychologists as well in order to maintain the patient's long-term quality of life.

One-Stage Arthroplasty or Revision for Seronegative Infections in Hip and Knee

Objective

To assess the safety and effectiveness of one‐stage total joint arthroplasty (TJA) or revision for seronegative infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

This retrospective study included a total of 495 patients who had undergone one‐stage total joint (hip or knee) arthroplasty or revision with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis secondary to sepsis, osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) secondary to internal fixation surgery of the hip joint, and one‐stage revision for prosthesis loosening after THA or TKA from January 2012 to December 2016. Bacterial cultures were taken from all patients (from joint fluid or articular cavity fluid and four to six different parts of soft tissues) during the operation. If the cultures were positive, patients received antibiotic treatment. Microbiology results from surgical samples, clinical evaluations, SF‐12 score (physical component summary [PCS] and mental component summary [MCS]), Harris hip score (HHS) or Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and patients' satisfaction was recorded at every follow‐up session.

Results

A total of 24 patients had a positive result for bacterial culture (4.85%). The bacterial culture results showed that there were 19 cases (79.16%) of gram‐positive cocci (Staphylococcus aureus), 4 cases (16.67%) of gram‐negative bacilli, and 1 case (4.17%) of fungi. For at least 24 months (mean 35 months) follow‐up, no reinfection was discovered. The mean HHS or HSS score improved significantly from 36.29 points preoperatively to 84.21 points postoperatively (P < 0.001). The mean PCS score improved from 10.15 preoperatively to 20.34 postoperatively, and the mean MCS from 13.22 preoperatively to 21.76 postoperatively, with significant differences. Most of the patients were satisfied.

Conclusion

One‐stage arthroplasty or revision with exhaustive debridement, adequate dosage, and duration of sensitive antibiotics is safe and effective for patients who have seronegative infection of hip or knee joints.

Partial 2-Stage Exchange for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Updated Report

BACKGROUND

Management of an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging. The eradication of infection as well as complications of component removal must all be considered. This study is an update on previous reports of treating periprosthetic infection of the hip with a partial 2-stage exchange with retention of the femoral component.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our practice's arthroplasty registry from 2000 to 2018 revealed 41 hips with 2-year minimum follow-up that were treated with a 2-stage partial exchange for an infected THA. All first-stage procedures allowed an articulating construct with 1 of 3 variations: cemented constrained liner (13 hips), StageOne Hip Cement Spacer Mold (14 hips), or an antibiotic polymethylmethacrylate head molded from a bulb syringe (14 hips). Of 41 cases, 34 were culture positive, with 3 cases having methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 1.5-18.5 years). The second-stage reimplantation was accomplished in 39 of the 41 hips (95%) at a mean interval of 9.2 weeks (range, 5-9 weeks). Two patients underwent repeat radical debridement with removal of all components before reimplantation for persistent clinical evidence of infection. Thirty-three of the 41 hips (81%) were infection free at most recent follow-up. The mean postoperative Harris hip score at most recent evaluation was 63.6 (range, 24-100).

CONCLUSION

Eradication of periprosthetic joint infections, while minimizing patient morbidity, continues to be a challenge. Partial 2-stage exchange may be considered in cases where removal of a well-fixed femoral component may result in significant bony destruction.

Microbiological profile and outcomes of two-stage revision hip arthroplasty

Background

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most challenging cases that confront modern orthopaedics. Two-stage revision, which is the standard of care for PJI, is the preferred mode of treatment for these infections.

Aims and Objectives

To study the microbiological profile of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) in the hip and to assess the efficacy of a two stage revision surgery for PJI. We also aimed to study the sensitivity and specificity of ESR and CRP in the diagnosis of PJI.

Materials and Methods

The microbiological profile, clinical and radiological outcomes of 22 patients who had a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed. PJI was defined using the criteria provided by the International Consensus Statement on PJI 2013.

Results

Staphylococcus aureus was found to be the most common organism in PJI. Debridement was successful in removing the organism in 74% of PJI. At the time of re-implantation (second stage), six joints grew organisms that were different from that isolated at the index debridement - coagulase-negative staphylococci (3cases) and enterococci (3cases). Other infection parameters for these patients were negative. None of the patients who had two-stage revision surgery had clinical evidence of reinfection or radiological evidence of loosening at a mean of 2-year follow-up. An ESR cut off of >30mm/hr had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 88% in predicting PJI. A CRP >10mg/L had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 69%. The sensitivity and specificity of using both ESR and CRP cut-offs in the diagnosis of infection were 57% and 94%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 94% and negative predictive value was 56%.

Conclusion

The outcomes of the study justify a two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip. The use of ESR and CRP as screening tests for the success of debridement has value - but should be interpreted with caution.

Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision

PURPOSE

There is no consensus regarding systematic screening for infection in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The rationale for systematic intra-operative samples is to increase the sensitivity of latent infections detection, which may require specific treatment. However, the incidence of occult infection in revision THAs is not precisely known. As such, the aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of occult infection in presumed aseptic revision THAs and identify associated risk factors.

METHOD

Bacteriological samples from 523 aseptic THA revisions performed for five years were analyzed. Revisions performed for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or clinical suspicion of PJI were excluded. Microbiological cultures were performed using tissue samples in 505 cases (97%), synovial fluid in blood culture vials in 158 (30%), and in dry tubes in 263 (50%). Implants were sent for sonication in 12 cases (2.6%). The mean number of microbiological samples per patient was 3.6 (range, 1-15). Histology samples were collected for 300 patients (57%).

RESULTS

The incidence of occult infection was 7% (36 cases) and contamination 8% (42 cases). Among occult infections, the primary reasons for revision were dislocation (42%), aseptic loosening (25%), fracture (19%), and others (14%). The infection rate in the dislocation group was significantly higher than that of other reasons for revision (p < 0.001). Among the patients determined with PJI, the revision THA was performed less than a year after primary in 19 (53%).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of occult PJI justifies systematic intraoperative sampling. A short time between primary arthroplasty and revision or an early postoperative dislocation is a factor to suspect infections.

Enhancing biology and providing structural support for acetabular reconstruction in single-stage revision for infection

Background

Reconstruction of combined segmental and cavitary defects of the acetabulum is a challenge to the hip surgeon. One question regards the efficacy of reconstruction of acetabular defects using a combination of tantalum metal augments (TMAs) and impaction graft in single-stage revision for periprosthetic infection.

Materials and methods

In the period between July 2009 and August 2014, 24 patients with combined segmental and cavitary acetabular defects and Paprosky classification grade IIB, IIC, and IIIA had hips reconstructed using the combination of TMAs and antibiotic-loaded impaction grafting. A similar group of 30 patients who received single-stage revision without metal augments were identified and taken as control. All patients received a polyethylene cemented cup and long cementless (Wagner SL) stem. Patients were prospectively evaluated using the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS) in addition to radiological evaluation at 3, 6, and 12 months then annually thereafter.

Results

At an average follow-up period of 4 years (range 2–7 years), all but one patient in the study group were free of infection, indicating a 96% success rate. This rate of eradicating infection was comparable to the 97% success rate in the control group. All metal augments were stable, and good incorporation of the impacted bone graft was observed. The HHS improved significantly from 27 preoperatively to 83 postoperatively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Metal augments can convert massive acetabular defects to a more contained defect suitable for grafting. The combination of tantalum augments that provide strong structural support and antibiotic-loaded allograft is successful in the mid-term in single-stage revisions for infection.

Level of evidence

Level IV (prospective case series).

Periprosthetic joint infections after total hip replacement: an algorithmic approach

An algorithm for managing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after total hip replacement (THR) surgery using a multidisciplinary approach and a clearly defined protocol may improve infection eradication rates. In this article, we present an algorithm for the management of different types of PJIs including the acutely infected cemented and cementless THRs where the components are well-fixed postoperatively and when the infection is secondary to haematogenous spread in previously well-functioning and well-fixed implants. For chronic PJIs where the components are often loose, the standard treatment includes a two-stage revision procedure. However, in a highly selected subset of patients, a single-stage approach has been utilised with high rates of eradicating infections.

Two-Stage Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection Is Associated with a High Rate of Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange is the most common form of treatment of chronic infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We examined the prevalence of, and risk factors associated with, hip instability following 2-stage exchange as well as the fate of reimplanted hip prostheses that dislocated.

METHODS

Data on 515 2-stage exchange THAs performed between 2000 and 2014 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Risk factors for instability as well as postoperative reoperations and revisions were analyzed. The impact of dislocation on these outcomes was evaluated as well. The mean age at the time of reimplantation was 65 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 15 years).

RESULTS

Dislocation occurred in 52 hips following reimplantation (cumulative probability = 8.9% at 1 year). There was a higher risk of instability in women (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, p = 0.038) and in those who had a history of dislocation prior to the 2-stage revision (HR = 5.1, p < 0.001). Younger age, body mass index, number of previous operations, spacer type, surgical approach, use of a constrained liner, femoral head diameter, and persistent or recurrent infection were not found to be significant risk factors. Patients with an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency also had a higher rate of dislocation (HR = 30, p < 0.001), as did patients who underwent reimplantation with a megaprosthesis (HR = 6.0, p < 0.001). The risk of additional reoperations (HR = 121, p < 0.001) and revision surgery (HR = 13, p < 0.001) was significantly higher in patients who experienced a dislocation after the 2-stage exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation after 2-stage exchange THA continues to be a major concern, with the 1-year cumulative probability found to be 9% in the present study. Female sex, a history of dislocation, an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency, and reimplantation with a megaprosthesis were identified as risk factors for dislocation. There is a remarkable 121-fold increase in the rate of reoperations and a 13-fold increase in the rate of revisions in hips that dislocated after 2-stage exchange THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The CRIOAc healthcare network in France: A nationwide Health Ministry program to improve the management of bone and joint infection

BACKGROUND

Bone and joint infections (BJIs) have a major clinical and economic impact in industrialized countries. Its management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and a great experience for the most complicated cases to limit treatment failure, motor disability and amputation risk. To our best knowledge there is not currently national specific organization dedicated to manage BJI. Is it possible to build at a national level, a network involving orthopaedic surgeons, infectiologists and microbiologists performing locally multidisciplinary meetings to facilitate the recruitment and the management of patients with complex bone and joint infection in regional centers?

HYPOTHESIS

A national healthcare network with regional labeled centers creates a dynamic that improves the recruitment, the management, the education, and the clinical research in the field of complex BJI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe the history of this unique national healthcare network and how it works, specify the missions confided to the CRIOAcs, evaluate the activity of the network over the first decade, and finally discuss perspectives.

RESULTS

The labelling of 24 centers in the CRIOAc network allowed for a meshing of the territory, with the possibility of management of complex BJI in each region of France. A dedicated secure national online information system was designed and used to facilitate decision-making during multidisciplinary consultation meetings. Since October 2012 to June 2017, 4553 multidisciplinary consultation meetings have been performed in the structures belonging to the network, with 34,607 cases discussed in 19,961 individual. Prosthetic joint infections represented 38% (7585/19,961) of all BJIs. Among all the cases discussed, the rate of complexity was of 61% (21,110/34,607) (related to antibiotic resistance, infection recurrence, patient co morbidities). A national scientific meeting was created and a national postgraduate diploma in the field of BJI was launched in 2014. The promotion of education, clinical research and interactivity between each academic discipline and between each labeled centers across the country has synergized the strengths and have greatly facilitated the management of patients with BJI.

DISCUSSION

The setting up of the CRIOAc network in France took time, and has a cost for the French Ministry of Health. However, this network has greatly facilitated the management of BJI in France, and allowed to concentrate the management of complex BJI in centers that have significantly gained skills. There is, to our knowledge, no other exemple of such nationwide network in the field of BJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series without control group.

Tests for predicting reimplantation success of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several tests are used before reimplantation to detect persistent infection in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergoing two-stage revision. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal tests for excluding persistent infection or predicting successful reimplantation by stage. We aimed to determine the accuracy of different tests used to detect persistent infection after the first stage, and/or predicting failure following reimplantation in patients with PJI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers independently conducted quality assessments and data extractions to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUSROC) for each test.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies published between May 1999 and September 2017. Synovial fluid polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN)% had the highest sensitivity of 0.70, followed by serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (0.57) and spacer sonication fluid culture (0.53). Synovial fluid culture had the highest specificity of 0.97, followed by frozen section (0.93) and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria (0.92). Spacer sonication fluid culture was the most accurate test with an AUSROC of 0.8089, followed by synovial fluid culture (0.7749) and frozen section (0.7819).

DISCUSSION

Spacer sonication fluid culture had a relatively high diagnostic accuracy. We emphasize that no test can be used alone to exclude persistent infection beyond the first stage and/or predict failed reimplantation beyond the second stage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, systematic review and meta-analysis of level 2 to level 4 studies with inconsistent results.

One-stage exchange with antibacterial hydrogel coated implants provides similar results to two-stage revision, without the coating, for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection

PURPOSE

Aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that a one-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, provides similar infection recurrence rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

In this two-center case-control, study, 22 patients, treated with a one-stage procedure, using implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel [defensive antibacterial coating (DAC)], were compared with 22 retrospective matched controls, treated with a two-stage revision procedure, without the coating.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 29.3 ± 5.0 months, two patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to three patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. Clinical scores were similar between groups, while average hospital stay and antibiotic treatment duration were significantly reduced after one-stage, compared to two-stage (18.9 ± 2.9 versus 35.8 ± 3.4 and 23.5 ± 3.3 versus 53.7 ± 5.6 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although in a relatively limited series of patients, our data shows similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with DAC-coated implants, compared to two-stage revision without coating, with reduced overall hospitalization time and antibiotic treatment duration. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Re-infection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6-20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3-38.3) for one-stage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58-5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.

Determining the Role and Duration of the "Antibiotic Holiday" Period in Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty involves resection and reimplantation of new implants at a later stage. An antibiotic-free period is often advocated by surgeons before reimplantation. However, there is no conclusive evidence supporting the utility or duration of this practice. This study evaluated the utility and optimal duration of the antibiotic-free period before reimplantation.

METHODS

Electronic infection databases of 2 institutions were retrospectively reviewed from 2000 to 2014 to identify 785 patients who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, of which 409 were reimplanted without any surgeries between the first and second stage. Total joint arthroplasties that met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The antibiotic holiday period was defined as the time period off antibiotics before reimplantation. Treatment success was defined according to the Delphi consensus criteria. A multivariate analysis and Fisher exact test were performed.

RESULTS

The duration of the antibiotic-free period was not significantly associated with reinfection following reimplantation after controlling for potential confounders, including joint involvement, gender, institution, and comorbidities. However, the duration of spacer implantation was significantly associated with reinfection. Of the patients who failed treatment, 41.5% failed on antibiotics while 58.5% failed during the antibiotic-free period at a mean of 26.1 days.

CONCLUSION

The duration of an antibiotic-free period does not appear to significantly affect PJI rate after reimplantation. However, many patients fail during the antibiotic-free period. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal timing of reimplantation for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI treatment.

The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era of increasing numbers of hip and knee replacements, strategies to manage prosthetic joint infection (PJI) that are effective at infection control with good patient-reported outcomes and cost containment for health systems are needed. Interest in single-stage exchange for PJI is rising and we assess evidence from the last 5 years related to this treatment strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only five series for total knee replacement and ten series for total hip replacement have been reported in the last five years. More review articles and opinion pieces have been written. Reinfection rates in these recent studies range from 0 to 65%, but a meta-analysis and systematic review of all studies showed a reinfection rate of 7.6% (95% CI 3.4-13.1) and 8.8% (95% CI 7.2-10.6) for single-stage and two-stage revisions respectively. There is emerging evidence to support single-stage revision in the setting of significant bony deficiency and atypical PJIs such as fungal infections. Prospective randomised studies are recruiting and are necessary to guide the direction of single-stage revision selection criteria. The onus of surgical excellence in mechanical removal of implants, necrotic tissue, and biofilms lies with the arthroplasty surgeon and must remain the cornerstone of treatment. Single-stage revision may be considered the first-line treatment for all PJIs unless the organism is unknown, the patient is systemically septic, or there is a poor tissue envelope.