Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach

Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection

INTRODUCTION

Although two-stage exchange has been the standard of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, single-stage exchange is emerging as an option in select patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage exchange using strict surgical indications.

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 196 patients with diagnosed PJI undergoing revision total knee and hip arthroplasty from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had PJI history, plastic surgery coverage, or extensive bone loss requiring endoprosthesis. We compared the number of patients PJI-free at 1-year follow-up using MusculoSkeletal Infection Society criteria and patients requiring re-revision between the single-stage and two-stage groups.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 61 knee patients (48.4%), 22 underwent single-stage (36%) and 39 underwent two-stage (63.9%). Of 65 hip patients (51.6%), 38 underwent single-stage (58.5%) and 27 underwent two-stage (41.5%). At a mean follow-up of 1.95 ± 0.88 years, a higher rate of knee patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (77.3% versus 69.2%, P = 0.501), however with comparable septic failure rates (18.1% single-stage versus 17.9% two-stage; P = 0.982). At a mean follow-up of 1.81 ± 0.9 years, a higher rate of hip patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (94.7% versus 81.5%, P = 0.089), and more patients had septic failures in the two-stage group (18.5% versus 5.3%; P = 0.089). No differences were observed in the microorganism profile. More total complications (P = 0.021) and mortalities were found in the single-stage knee cohort than in the two-stage cohort (22.7% versus 2.6%; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage arthroplasty is a viable alternative to standard two-stage exchange in patients with PJI without a history of infection and with no bone or soft-tissue compromise. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

The Incidence Rate, Microbiological Etiology, and Results of Treatments of Prosthetic Joint Infection following Total Knee Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains among the most challenging and costly complications. PJI rates vary from 0.39% to 3.9% after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to identify the causative microorganisms involved and to report our experience of subsequent treatment of PJI following over 7000 TKAs performed over 19 years. A retrospective study was conducted on 4547 patients (7019 cases) from March 2000 to September 2019. The incidence rate of PJI was 0.5%. Gram-positive bacteria accounted for 88.8% (n = 16) of the 18 cases, and S. aureus was the most commonly isolated pathogen (n = 7, 38.8%). There were six cases of MSSA and one case of MRSA. Streptococcus species (n = 7, 38.8%) also showed the same pattern. The CoNS species (n = 2, 11.1%) and Gram-negative bacteria (n = 1, 5.5%) were also reported. Candida species were isolated from 1 patient (5.5%). Successful I&D and implant retention (DAIR procedures) was achieved at the final follow-up in 19 patients (82.6%). The incidence of causative microorganisms was different for each PJI onset type. The overall infection rate of PJI was less than 1%. Although the success rate of DAIR procedures is lower than the two-stage exchange arthroplasty in this study, it is possible to achieve acceptable success rates if DAIR procedures are carefully selected considering the virulence of the microorganism, duration since symptom onset, and early-onset infection.

Mycobacterium avium complex prosthetic joint infection: A systematic review of the literature and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been rarely reported.

METHODS

This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology and outcomes of MAC PJI. A systematic review of the literature regarding the MAC infection following total joint arthroplasty including hip and knee joint was performed. Multiple databases were searched for published English-written articles up to May 2023. Studies that reported cases of PJI by MAC were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients were identified and analyzed from 11 published studies. All patients presented with joint symptom of pain or swelling prior to the diagnosis and MAC was confirmed by culture. The most of the patients (16/17 patients, 94.1%) were noted to have underlying medical condition(s) that might have affected immunity. Treatment consisted of anti-MAC medication therapy only in two patients and anti-MAC medication therapy plus surgery in 15 patients. Among the patients who underwent surgery, 14 patients (82.3%) had removal of the prosthesis including seven patients who had two-stage surgery to have reimplantation of the prosthesis. No relapse of MAC infection was reported despite of one case of relapse of infection caused by different pyogenic bacteria. The rate of overall mortality was 29.4%, however, identified attributable mortality due to MAC infection was low (5.9%).

CONCLUSION

PJI by MAC is a rare disease. However, MAC needs to be considered in the differential diagnosis in immunocompromised patients presenting with symptoms of PJI. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty may result in successful treatment outcomes without higher risks of relapse of infection if undertaken in association with appropriate active anti-MAC antibiotic therapy.

Impact of Comorbidities and Previous Surgery on Mid-Term Results of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

(1) Background: In the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), the individual host status and previous surgical procedures appear to have a relevant influence on success rates and clinical outcome of knee revision surgery. Current data about the predictive value are limited in this subgroup of patients. (2) Methods: Retrospectively, 107 patients (109 knees) undergoing two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty for PJI using a rotating-hinge design with at least two years follow-up. The cumulative incidence (CI) for different endpoints was estimated with death as competing risk. Univariate and multivariate analyses for potential predictive factors were performed. Patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical outcome were evaluated. (3) Results: At 8 years, the CI of any revision was 29.6%, and of any reoperation was 38.9%. Significant predictors for risk of re-revision were the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the number of previous surgical procedures prior to explanation of the infected implant. The functional and clinical outcome demonstrated acceptable results in the present cohort with a high comorbidity level. (4) Conclusions: A compromised host status and multiple previous surgical procedures were identified as negative predictors for re-revision knee surgery in the treatment of PJI. Reinfection remained the major reason for re-revision. Overall mortality was high.

Factors affecting range of motion following two-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic knee infection

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors that affect range of motion (ROM) following two-stage revision arthroplasty as a treatment for chronic periprosthetic knee infection.

Materials and methods

A total of 98 patients diagnosed with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary total knee arthroplasty between January 2009 and December 2019 and then underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty were reviewed retrospectively. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors that affect ROM after two-stage revision arthroplasty. ROM after two-stage revision arthroplasty was used as a dependent variable, while age at the time of surgery, ROM at PJI diagnosis, ROM after the first-stage surgery, the interval between the first-stage surgery and the second-stage surgery, whether a re-operation was performed before the second-stage surgery, culture results (culture negative or culture positive), and body mass index (BMI) were used as independent variables.

Results

Multiple regression analysis (R2 = 0.843) revealed that among the independent variables, ROM (β = 0.604, P < 0.001) after the first-stage surgery, whether a re-operation was performed before the second-stage surgery (β =  − 8.847, P < 0.001), the interval between the first-stage surgery and the second-stage surgery (β = − 0.778, P = 0.003), and BMI (β =  − 0.698, P = 0.041) were associated with ROM after two-stage revision arthroplasty, the dependent variable.

Conclusions

In two-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic knee infection, ROM after the first-stage surgery, whether a re-operation was performed before the second-stage surgery, the interval between the first-stage surgery and the second-stage surgery, and BMI were found to be factors that were associated with ROM after two-stage revision arthroplasty.

Infection after total joint replacement of the hip and knee: research programme including the INFORM RCT

Background

People with severe osteoarthritis, other joint conditions or injury may have joint replacement to reduce pain and disability. In the UK in 2019, over 200,000 hip and knee replacements were performed. About 1 in 100 replacements becomes infected, and most people with infected replacements require further surgery.

Objectives

To investigate why some patients are predisposed to joint infections and how this affects patients and the NHS, and to evaluate treatments.

Design

Systematic reviews, joint registry analyses, qualitative interviews, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses and a discrete choice questionnaire.

Setting

Our studies are relevant to the NHS, to the Swedish health system and internationally.

Participants

People with prosthetic joint infection after hip or knee replacement and surgeons.

Interventions

Revision of hip prosthetic joint infection with a single- or two-stage procedure.

Main outcome measures

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and reinfection. Cost-effectiveness of revision strategies over 18 months from two perspectives: health-care provider and Personal Social Services, and societal.

Data sources

National Joint Registry; literature databases; published cohort studies; interviews with 67 patients and 35 surgeons; a patient discrete choice questionnaire; and the INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) randomised trial.

Review methods

Systematic reviews of studies reporting risk factors, diagnosis, treatment outcomes and cost comparisons. Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Results

In registry analyses, about 0.62% and 0.75% of patients with hip and knee replacement, respectively, had joint infection requiring surgery. Rates were four times greater after aseptic revision. The costs of inpatient and day-case admissions in people with hip prosthetic joint infection were about five times higher than those in people with no infection, an additional cost of > £30,000. People described devastating effects of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and treatment. In the treatment of hip prosthetic joint infection, a two-stage procedure with or without a cement spacer had a greater negative impact on patient well-being than a single- or two-stage procedure with a custom-made articulating spacer. Surgeons described the significant emotional impact of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and the importance of a supportive multidisciplinary team. In systematic reviews and registry analyses, the risk factors for hip and knee prosthetic joint infection included male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, high body mass index, poor physical status, diabetes, dementia and liver disease. Evidence linking health-care setting and surgeon experience with prosthetic joint infection was inconsistent. Uncemented fixation, posterior approach and ceramic bearings were associated with lower infection risk after hip replacement. In our systematic review, synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy for prosthetic joint infection. Systematic reviews and individual patient data meta-analysis showed similar reinfection outcomes in patients with hip or knee prosthetic joint infection treated with single- and two-stage revision. In registry analysis, there was a higher rate of early rerevision after single-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection, but, overall, 40% fewer operations are required as part of a single-stage procedure than as part of a two-stage procedure. The treatment of hip or knee prosthetic joint infection with early debridement and implant retention may be effective in > 60% of cases. In the INFORM randomised controlled trial, 140 patients with hip prosthetic joint infection were randomised to single- or two-stage revision. Eighteen months after randomisation, pain, function and stiffness were similar between the randomised groups (p = 0.98), and there were no differences in reinfection rates. Patient outcomes improved earlier in the single-stage than in the two-stage group. Participants randomised to a single-stage procedure had lower costs (mean difference –£10,055, 95% confidence interval –£19,568 to –£542) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval –0.07 to 0.18) than those randomised to a two-stage procedure. Single-stage was the more cost-effective option, with an incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year of £11,167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21,696). In a discrete choice questionnaire completed by 57 patients 18 months after surgery to treat hip prosthetic joint infection, the most valued characteristics in decisions about revision were the ability to engage in valued activities and a quick return to normal activity.

Limitations

Some research was specific to people with hip prosthetic joint infection. Study populations in meta-analyses and registry analyses may have been selected for joint replacement and specific treatments. The INFORM trial was not powered to study reinfection and was limited to 18 months’ follow-up. The qualitative study subgroups were small.

Conclusions

We identified risk factors, diagnostic biomarkers, effective treatments and patient preferences for the treatment of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. The risk factors include male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, specific comorbidities and surgical factors. Synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy. Infection is devastating for patients and surgeons, both of whom describe the need for support during treatment. Debridement and implant retention is effective, particularly if performed early. For infected hip replacements, single- and two-stage revision appear equally efficacious, but single-stage has better early results, is cost-effective at 18-month follow-up and is increasingly used. Patients prefer treatments that allow full functional return within 3–9 months.

Future work

For people with infection, develop information, counselling, peer support and care pathways. Develop supportive care and information for patients and health-care professionals to enable the early recognition of infections. Compare alternative and new treatment strategies in hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Assess diagnostic methods and establish NHS diagnostic criteria.

Study registration

The INFORM randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN10956306. All systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO (as CRD42017069526, CRD42015023485, CRD42018106503, CRD42018114592, CRD42015023704, CRD42017057513, CRD42015016559, CRD42015017327 and CRD42015016664).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

BACKGROUND

Consensus recommendations are lacking regarding appropriate timing of reimplantation following 2-stage resection arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We investigated whether the time from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was associated with treatment outcome at 2 years.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort review was conducted for 101 patients undergoing resection arthroplasty with an antibiotic spacer for PJI at a single tertiary academic referral institution. Time from explantation and spacer placement to reimplantation was categorized into 3 groups: <12, 12-18, and >18 weeks. Baseline patient and treatment course characteristics across these groups were obtained. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to characterize association between treatment failure and time to reimplantation, controlling for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and prior revision surgery.

RESULTS

Time to reimplantation (TTR) >18 weeks demonstrated statistically significant increased odds of treatment failure, after controlling for ASA score and prior revision surgery (odds ratio 7.00, confidence interval 2.14-25.42, P = .002). After excluding patients requiring second spacer or Girdlestone prior to replant, this increased odds of failure remained (odds ratio 4.12, confidence interval 1.18-15.37, P = .029). TTR groups were similar with respect to demographics, except for ASA (2.96 for time to reimplantation >18 weeks vs 2.55 for time to reimplantation <12 weeks; P = .011). Patients with TTR >18 weeks were more likely to have an unplanned readmission during the spacer period (48%, 19%, and 6% for time to reimplantation >18, 12-18, and 0-12 weeks, respectively; P < .002).

CONCLUSION

Although decision regarding TTR is largely patient specific, surgeons should be aware that TTR >18 weeks may be associated with higher rates of treatment failure at 2 years.

A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study of Periprosthetic Hip Infection Treated by one-stage Method Including Cases With Bone Graft Reconstruction

Purpose:

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that can affect hip arthroplasty. Its treatment is extremely difficult, and issues regarding the optimal treatment remain unanswered. This study intended to show the effectiveness of the one-stage treatment of PJI.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective observational cohort study performed from July 2014- August 2018. All patients with suspected PJI were included. Major and minor criteria developed by the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (ICPJI) was used to define infection. Laboratory tests and image exams were performed, and all patients were followed for at least 2 years.

Outcomes:

Success rate (2018 ICPJI definition to success) in treatment of PJI using one-stage revision method. Clinical and functional outcomes defined by Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Results:

Thirty-one patients were screened and 18 analyzed. 69.85 ± 9.76 years was the mean age. Mean follow-up time was 63.84 ± 18.55 months. Ten patients had acetabular defects and required bone graft reconstruction. Sixteen patients were classified as Tier 1, 1 as Tier 3D, and as 1 Tier 3E. Almost 90% of patients submitted to one-stage revision with acetabulum graft reconstruction were free of infection. The overall infection survival rate was 78.31±6.34 months. Candida albicans and sinus tract were statistically significant in univariate Cox’s analysis. The predictor of one-stage revision surgery failure that remained final Cox’s regression model was C. albicans (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.47).

Conclusion:

Treatment through one-stage revision surgery associated with 6 months of antimicrobial is a viable option with acceptable results even when bone graft reconstruction is necessary. C. albicans was a strong predictor of failure in this cohort.

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.

Temporary new implant spacers increase post-reimplantation total knee prosthesis survival after periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Antibiotic cement spacers can include cement-based spacers (CBS), new components (NEW), and autoclaved components (ACL). The factors that most influence post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival were determined.

METHODS

A retrospective database review of patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2008 to 2014 was performed. There were 85 patients, 25 patients and 30 patients in CBS, NEW and ACL groups, respectively. Patient, disease and surgical characteristics were collected and analyzed. Post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival was modeled using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard modeling was then performed to identify risk factors associated with implant failure.

RESULTS

Overall PRP survival was 82% in 140 unilateral TKAs. PRP survival between groups was 81%, 96% and 73% within the minimum 2-year follow-up period, respectively. There was a difference in median interval-to-reimplantation between groups (CBS, 72.0 days; NEW, 111.0 days; ACL, 84.0 days, p = 0.003). Adjusting for time-to-reimplantation, NEW spacers demonstrated greater PRP survival compared with ACL spacers (p = 0.044), and a trend towards greater survival compared with CBS spacers (p = 0.086). Excluding early failures (< 90 days), NEW spacers still demonstrated greater survival than ACL spacers (p = 0.046). Lower volume (≤ 10 within this series) surgeons tended to use more CBS spacers, while higher volume surgeons were comfortable with ACL spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

There was greater PRP survival with NEW spacers. NEW spacers also demonstrated an increased inter-stage interval, likely because of increased comfort and motion. There were spacer choice differences between low- and high-volume surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Superinfection with Difficult-to-Treat Pathogens Significantly Reduces the Outcome of Periprosthetic Joint Infections

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty. In the course of a PJI, superinfections with pathogens that do not match the primary infecting micro-organism may occur. To our knowledge, there are no published data on the outcome of such infections in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of PJI with superinfections with a difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogen. Data of 169 consecutive patients with PJI were retrospectively analyzed in this single-center study. Cases were categorized into: Group 1 including non-DTT-PJI without superinfection, Group 2 DTT-PJI without superinfection, Group 3 non-DTT-PJI with DTT superinfection, and Group 4 non-DTT-PJI with non-DTT superinfection. Group 3 comprised 24 patients and showed, after a mean follow-up of 13.5 ± 10.8 months, the worst outcome with infection resolution in 17.4% of cases (p = 0.0001), PJI-related mortality of 8.7% (p = 0.0001), mean revision rate of 6 ± 3.6 (p < 0.0001), and duration of antibiotic treatment of 71.2 ± 45.2 days (p = 0.0023). PJI caused initially by a non-DTT pathogen with a superinfection with a DTT pathogen is significantly associated with the worst outcome in comparison to non-DTT-PJI, PJI caused initially by a DTT pathogen, and to non-DTT-PJI with a non-DTT superinfection.

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.

Is the Proportion of Patients with "Successful" Outcomes After Two-stage Revision for Prosthetic Joint Infection Different When Applying the Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool Compared with the Delphi-based Consensus Criteria?

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of criteria for defining successful treatment after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection (PJI). To accurately assess current practices and improve techniques, it is important to first establish reliable, clinically relevant, reproducible criteria for defining persistent infection and "successful" outcomes.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Is the proportion of patients considered to have successful management of PJI after two-stage resection arthroplasty smaller using 2019 Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool (MSIS ORT) criteria than when using a Delphi-based criterion?

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively identified by Current Procedural Technology codes for resection arthroplasty with placement of an antibiotic spacer for infected THA or TKA between April 1, 2011 and January 1, 2018 at a tertiary academic institution. The initial review identified 180 procedures during this time period. Nine patients had documented transition of care outside the system, 16 did not meet the MSIS criteria for chronic PJI, and 34 patients were excluded for lack of documented 2-year follow-up. The mean follow-up duration of the final cohort of 121 procedures in 120 patients was approximately 3.7 ± 1.7 years. Forty percent (49 of 121) of the procedures were performed on the hip and 60% (72 of 121) were performed on the knee. The mean time from primary THA or TKA to explantation was 4.6 years. The mean age of the patients at the time of explantation was 66 years. The mean time from spacer placement to replantation was 119 days. The final 121 patient records were reviewed by a single reviewer and outcomes were subsequently assigned to "successful" and "unsuccessful" outcomes based on the MSIS ORT and Delphi-based consensus criterion, two previously published and validated multidimensional definition schemes. Chi-squared and t-test analyses were performed to identify differences between "successful" and "unsuccessful" outcomes with respect to patient baseline characteristics using each outcome-reporting criterion.

RESULTS

Overall, the MSIS ORT classified a smaller proportion of patients as having a "successful" treatment outcome after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI than the Delphi-based consensus method did (MSIS: 55% [63 of 114], Delphi: 70% [71 of 102]; relative risk 0.79 [0.65-0.98]; p = 0.03). However, there were no differences when stratified by hips (MSIS: 55% [26 of 47], Delphi: 74% [29 of 39]; relative risk 0.74 [0.54-1.02]; p = 0.07) and knees (MSIS: 55% [37 of 67], Delphi: 67% [42 of 63]; relative risk 0.83 [0.63-1.09]; p = 0.19). Notably, the disease of 16% of the patients (19 of 121) was not classifiable per the Delphi method because these patients never underwent reimplantation.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that the MSIS criteria detect fewer instances of "successful" infection management after two-stage resection arthroplasty for PJI than the Delphi method in this cohort. Based on these findings, researchers and surgeons should aim for standardized reporting after intervention for PJI to allow for a better comparison of outcomes across different studies and ultimately allow for improved techniques and approaches to the treatment of PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Sonication fluid culture of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer has high accuracy to confirm eradication of infection before reimplantation of new prostheses

BACKGROUND

Sonication fluid culture of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer has been used to predict reinfection of two-stage revision, but its value remains disputable. This study aims to evaluate the association between the culture result of the sonicated spacer and the status of patients with periprosthetic joint infection receiving two-stage revision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed through four databases including PubMed, Embase/Ovid, and EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve studies in which sonication fluid culture of the antibiotic spacer was conducted before reimplantation. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated to assess the association between the culture result of sonicated spacer and prognosis of the two-stage revision.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies comprising 603 artificial joints with PJI (134 suffering a clinical failure of two-stage revision) were included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled incidences of positive culture of sonicated spacer and intraoperative tissue were 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.21) and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.20), respectively. A positive culture of sonicated antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer illustrated moderate sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.58) but high specificity (0.94, 95% CI 0.86-0.98) for the diagnosis of therapeutic failure of two-stage revision; the pooled DOR was 7.67 (95% CI, 3.63-16.22). Meanwhile, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of intraoperative tissue culture during the two-stage revision to predict therapeutic failure were 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and 10.62 (95% CI, 4.90-23.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sonication fluid culture of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer revealed high accuracy for confirming eradication of infection before reimplantation of new prostheses and therefore could be used as a supplement for assessing therapeutic effect for PJI. However, both sonication fluid culture and intraoperative tissue culture from antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer showed restricted yield for the prediction of a septic failure after the two-stage revision of PJI. Large-scale, prospective studies are still needed to testify current findings.

Anabolic Agents for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: How Do You Choose?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.

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.

Customized intraoperatively molded articulating cement spacers for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects

BACKGROUND

The use of articulating spacers, molded or prefabricated, becomes difficult in case of severe bone losses. Our idea was to customize the Molded Articulating Cement Spacers with cement stem extensions and if necessary metaphyseal cement augmentations in order to use them also in case of major bone defects.

METHODS

Fifty-four knees in fifty-three patients undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were divided in 4 groups, treated with 4 different types of spacers (Static, articulating molded, customized molded and metal on Poly) and evaluated in terms of Range of Motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), patients' related outcome measures (PROMs), rate of complication and ease of the surgical exposure at the time of reimplantation.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, no statistical differences in terms of ROM and KSS were found between the articulating groups. Static Spacers showed statistically significant lower results both in terms of ROM and KSS comparing to the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). Considering PROMs, statistically better outcomes for all articulating spacers were found both when spacer was in place and at final follow-up comparing to the static spacers group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the 3 articulating spacers groups. Radiographic analysis did not show signs of loosening, migration or major bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Customized Intraoperatively Molded Articulating Cement Spacers are a safe solution for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects and may provide a better quality of life for patients when in place comparing to static ones.

Single-Stage Revision of the Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Improved Functional Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Single-stage revision is an alternative to the standard 2-stage revision, potentially minimizing morbidities and improving functional outcomes. This study aimed at comparing single-stage and 2-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with regard to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complication rates.

METHODS

A total of 185 consecutive revision TKA patients for chronic PJI with complete preoperative and postoperative PROMs were investigated. A total of 44 patients with single-stage revision TKA were matched to 88 patients following 2-stage revision TKA using propensity score matching, yielding a total of 132 propensity score-matched patients for analysis. Patient demographics and clinical information including reinfection and readmission rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative PROMs between propensity score-matched single-stage and 2-stage revision TKA cohorts. Postoperatively, significantly higher PROMs for single-stage revision TKA were observed for Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score physical function (62.2 vs 51.9, P < .01), physical function short form 10A (42.8 vs 38.1, P < .01), PROMIS SF Physical (44.8 vs 41.0, P = .01), and PROMIS SF Mental (50.5 vs 47.1, P = .02). There was no difference between propensity score-matched single-stage and 2-stage revision TKA cohorts for clinical outcomes including reinfection rates (25.0% vs 27.2%, P = .78) and 90-day readmission rates (22.7% vs 25.0%, P = .77).

CONCLUSION

This study illustrated that single-stage revision TKA for chronic PJI may be associated with superior patient-reported outcomes compared to 2-stage revision for the infected TKA using a variety of PROMs. Improved PROMs were not accompanied by differences in complication rates between both cohorts, suggesting that single-stage revision TKA may provide an effective alternative to 2-stage revision in patients with chronic TKA PJI.

Do not exchange the spacer during staged TKA exchange!

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the reinfection rate and risk factors for septic failure after two-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infections of primary total knee arthroplasties. Reinfections should be classified as new infection or as infection recurrence after two-stage exchange.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 60 knees with chronic periprosthetic joint infections. Follow-up information was extracted from the departments electronic database.

Results

The reinfection rate after a mean follow-up of 35.6 months (1–135) was 20.0%. The only significant risk factor for reinfection was spacer exchange during two-stage exchange (OR = 10.42; p = 0.001). Of the 12 cases with reinfection 6 cases were classified as new infection and 2 as infection recurrence.

Conclusions

Patient specific factors for reinfection remain furtive. If a spacer exchange is preformed, the risk of reinfection increases. Culture results indicate that the benefit of spacer exchanges during two-stage exchange is highly questionable, particularly because reinfection is an issue of new infection rather than of infection recurrence.

Current actual success rate of the two-stage exchange arthroplasty strategy in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection

AIMS

The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better.

RESULTS

A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient's choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson's C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group.

CONCLUSION

The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682-1688.

The evolution from the two stage to the one stage procedure for biofilm based periprosthetic joint infections (PJI)

A definitive consensus on the optimal limb salvage protocol for infected total joints does not currently exist. Popular, is the two-stage revision which calls for the use of an antibiotic loaded spacer followed by a delayed exchange. Our question is whether single-stage revisions for biofilm based infected arthroplasties results in comparable or possibly better patient outcomes as compared to those reported for two-stage revisions. We retrospectively reviewed 500 cases of one-stage revisions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) using dual setup with radical debridement, definitive reconstruction with antibiotic loaded cement and implantation of antibiotic calcium sulfate pellets between the years 2005-2017. The revisions included 351 total knees, 122 hips, 2 hip-femur-knees, 13 shoulders, 10 elbows, and 2 shoulder-humerus-elbows. The patient population had a mean follow-up of 60 months (range: 24 months-14 years) and mean patient age of 61 years old, consisting of 250 males and 250 females. Patient comorbidities were reviewed, classified using McPherson's staging for PJIs, and compared to the Cierny & Mader classification system. Successful treatment was defined as a joint without recurrence of infection, for a minimum of 2 years, and limb preservation. Based on our findings, one-stage revision of PJIs demonstrates at least as good an infection eradication rate as two-stage revision: 88% vs 85% respectively.

Outcome of Revision Surgery for Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results of 3 Surgical Strategies

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after knee arthroplasty surgery remains a serious complication, yet there is no international consensus regarding the surgical treatment of PJI. This study aimed to assess prosthesis survival rates, risk of revision, and mortality rate following different surgical strategies (1-stage versus 2-stage implant revision and irrigation and debridement with implant retention) that are used to treat PJI.

METHODS

The study was based on 644 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) that were revised because of a deep infection (i.e., surgically treated PJI) and reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) from 1994 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier and multiple Cox regression analyses were performed to assess implant survival rate and risk of revision. We also studied mortality rates at 90 days and 1 year after revision for PJI.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, 19% of the irrigation and debridement cases, 14% of the 1-stage revision cases, and 12% of the 2-stage revision cases underwent a subsequent revision because of a PJI. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for infection as the end point was 79% after irrigation and debridement, 87% after 1-stage revision, and 87% after 2-stage revision. There were no significant differences between 1-stage and 2-stage revisions with subsequent revision for any reason as the end point (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 3.5) and no difference with revision because of infection as the end point (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.7 to 3.7). In an age-stratified analysis, however, the risk of revision for any reason was 4 times greater after 1-stage revision than after 2-stage revision in patients over the age of 70 years (RR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 14.8). Age had no significant effect on the risk of subsequent revision for knees that had been revised with the irrigation and debridement procedure. The 90-day and 1-year mortality rates after revision for PJI were 1.2% and 2.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrigation and debridement yielded good results compared with previous published studies. Although the 1-stage revisions resulted in a fourfold increase in risk of subsequent revision compared with the 2-stage revisions in older patients, the overall outcomes after 1-stage and 2-stage revisions were similar.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Difficult-to-treat pathogens significantly reduce infection resolution in periprosthetic joint infections

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication after arthroplasty. Our hypothesis was that PJI caused by difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens has a worse outcome compared with non-DTT PJI. Routine clinical data on 77 consecutive patients with confirmed PJI treated with 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were placed in DTT and non-DTT PJI groups and analyzed. The main outcome variable was that the patient was definitively free of infection after 2 years. We found definitive infection resolution in 31 patients in the DTT group (68.9%) and 28 patients (87.5%) in the non-DTT group (P < 0.05). The necessity for revision surgery until assumed resolution of infection was significantly more frequent in the DTT group with 4.72 ± 3.03 operations versus 2.41 ± 3.02 operations in the non-DTT group (P < 0.05). PJI caused by DTT bacteria is associated with significantly higher numbers of revision operations and significantly inferior definitive infection resolution.

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With High Attrition Rate and Mortality

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine the ultimate fate of patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as a first stage in the process of 2-stage exchange and evaluate risk factors for modes of failure.

METHODS

A retrospective case study was performed including all patients with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent first-stage resection of a hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection from 2008 to 2015. Patient demographics, laboratory, and health status variables were collected. The primary outcome analyzed was defined as failure to achieve an infection-free 2-stage revision. Univariate pairwise comparison followed by multivariate regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for failure outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients underwent resection arthroplasty in a planned 2-stage exchange protocol (27 hips, 62 knees). Mean age was 64 years (range, 43-84), 56.2% were males, and mean follow-up was 56.3 months. Also, 68.5% (61/89) of patients underwent second-stage revision. Of the 61 patients who complete a 2-stage protocol, 14.8% (9/61) of patients failed with diagnosis of repeat or recurrent infection. Mortality rate was 23.6%. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for failure to achieve an infection-free 2-stage revision as polymicrobial infection (P < .004; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-29.0), McPherson extremity grade 3 (P < .024; AOR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.2-14.3), and history of prior resection (P < .013; AOR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.4-16.4).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing resection arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection are at high risk of death (24%) and failure to complete the 2-stage protocol (32%). Those who complete the 2-stage protocol have a 15% rate of reinfection at 4.5-year follow-up.

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.

The Usage of Pedicled or Free Muscle Flaps Represents a Beneficial Approach for Periprosthetic Infection After Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication after a total knee replacement that is primarily associated with soft tissue defects. Finding an appropriate therapy for PJI is a major challenge because of the lack of guidelines and research comparing treatment options.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively compared 78 patients who had a knee prosthetic infection within a mean follow-up period of 24 months. Group A received a soft tissue coverage in addition to orthopedic surgical therapy with or without a component replacement (CR) of the prosthesis. Group B received the same orthopedic treatment without plastic surgery for soft tissue coverage.

RESULTS

Only 21% of the patients in group A received a CR compared with 70% in group B (P = 0.0001). In group A, 83% did not have a recurrent infection, and in group B, 57% of the patients had no further infection and regained joint function (P = 0.0376). In group A, only 15% of the patients who received a CR had a significant complication within the follow-up period of 2 years, whereas in group B, 75% of patients exhibiting a major complication (P = 0.0048*).

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue coverage improves the outcome after PJI of the knee with soft tissue defects. Patients who simultaneously needed plastic surgery for defect coverage and orthopedic surgery for CR had the lowest number of complications overall. Based on the results of this study, a therapy algorithm could be identified considering the soft tissue defect grade leading to the lowest major complication rates and maximizing the outcome of knee prosthesis infection therapies.

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants as Functional Prosthetic Spacers for Definitive Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the utility of a standard primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia as a functional prosthetic spacer in place of a conventional all cement spacer for the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this multicenter study was to retrospectively review (1) ultimate treatment success; (2) reimplantation rates; (3) reoperation rates; and (4) change in knee range of motion in patients managed with functional prosthetic spacers following TKA PJI.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients at 2 tertiary care centers who underwent a functional prosthetic spacer implantation as part of a functional single-stage (n = 57) or all cement spacer conventional two-stage (n = 137) revision arthroplasty protocol over a 5-year period. Outcomes including reinfection, reimplantation, and reoperation rates, success rate as defined by the Delphi criteria, and final range of motion were compared between the 2 cohorts at a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in reinfection (14.0 vs 24.1%), reoperation (19.3 vs 27.7%), or success rates (78.9 vs 70.8%; P > .05 for all) between the one-stage and two-stage revision TKA cohorts. Mean final total arc of motion was also similar between the 2 groups (105.8 vs 101.8 degrees, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Functional prosthetic spacers offer the advantage of a single procedure with decreased overall hospitalization and improved cost-effectiveness with analogous success rates (78.9%) compared with two-stage exchange (70.8%) at mid-term follow-up. Although long-term data are required to determine its longevity and efficacy, the outcomes in this study are encouraging.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Immobilization-Enhanced Eradication of Bacterial Biofilms and in situ Antimicrobial Coating of Implant Material Surface - an in vitro Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate a new method of in situ biofilm treatment for infected prostheses that remove bacterial biofilm and prevent reinfection through the use of an immobilizing agent in combination with the actions of biofilm-lysing enzymes and bactericidal antimicrobials.

METHODS

We investigated the combination of self-immobilization chemistry of dopamine with a biofilm-lysing enzyme, α-amylase (Am), and an antimicrobial agent, silver nitrate (Ag), to treat model Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) biofilms formed on titanium. The efficacy of biofilm removal and bacterial treatment was analyzed by crystal violet, colony-forming unit assays, confocal laser scanning microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). To confirm the in situ coating of the titanium surface with antimicrobial Ag as a strategy to prevent bacterial recolonization, SEM in secondary electron mode (SE), backscatter electron mode, (BSE) and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDX) were used. The antimicrobial activity of the coated surface was evaluated by optical density measurement and colony-forming unit assays.

RESULTS

Polydopamine (PDA)-assisted treatment showed approximately a 2 log reduction in recoverable CFU and a 15% increase in biofilm removal efficacy compared to treatments that had only Am or Ag. More importantly, PDA-assisted treatment was found to immobilize Ag on the surface after the treatment, rendering them resistant to bacterial recolonization.

CONCLUSION

Our in vitro findings suggested that this PDA-assisted treatment and the surface immobilization-enhanced treatment concept could be promising in the development of advanced treatment for implant retention surgery for an infected prosthesis.

Use of Antibiotic Loaded Biomaterials for the Management of Bone Prosthesis Infections: Rationale and Limits

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection still represents a challenging issue for the orthopedic community. In the United States approximately a million joint arthroplasties are performed each year, with infection rates ranging from 1 to 2%: revisions has significant implications on health care costs and appropriate resource management. The use of locally applied antibiotics as a prophylaxis measure or as a component of the therapeutic approach in primary or revision surgery is finalized at eliminating any microorganism and strengthening the effectiveness of systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The present review of clinical and preclinical in vivo studies tried to identify advantages and limitations of the materials used in the clinical orthopedic practice and discuss developed biomaterials, innovative therapeutic approaches or strategies to release antibiotics in the infected environment.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out by two independent observers in two databases (www.pubmed.com and www.scopus.com) in order to identify pre-clinical and clinical reports in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

71 papers were recognized eligible: 15 articles were clinical studies and 56 in vivo studies.

CONCLUSION

Polymethylmethacrylate was the pioneer biomaterial used to manage infections after total joint replacement. Despite its widespread use, several issues still remain debated: the methods to combine materials and antibiotics, the choice of antibiotics, releasing kinetics and antibiotics efficacy. In the last years, the interest was directed towards the selection of different antibiotics, loaded in association with more than only one class and biomaterials with special focus on delivery systems as implant surface coatings, hydrogels, ceramics, micro-carriers, microspheres or nanoparticles.

Linezolid in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is increasingly common and is sometimes treated with off-label use of linezolid. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with PJI caused by CoNS treated with surgical intervention and orally administrated linezolid during the period 1995-2014 (n = 28). Clinical outcomes and adverse events related to linezolid administration were evaluated. Mean time to follow-up was 4.3 years (range: 0.2-12). Results: Twenty-two of 28 patients were infection-free at follow-up. No CoNS strain was resistant to vancomycin, but 16 of 28 were resistant to rifampicin, 23 of 28 to clindamycin and 20 of 27 to quinolones. The mean duration of linezolid treatment was 4.2 weeks (range: 1-12). Eleven of 28 patients had an adverse event related to the antimicrobial treatment, and four had to discontinue linezolid, but all adverse events were reversible within 2 months after discontinuation. Conclusions: Oral linezolid administration combined with adequate surgical treatment may be useful for the treatment of PJIs caused by CoNS.

Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection

The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee.

We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static.

In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4° in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8° in the double-stage exchange group.

Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two -stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:495-502. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003

One-stage versus two-stage prosthesis replacement for prosthetic knee infections

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic knee infection is a severe complication. Confirmed criteria are lacking to choose between one-stage or two-stage prosthesis replacement to treat the infection. The one-stage replacement could lead to a satisfactory control of the infection and to better functional results.

METHOD

Retrospective study conducted between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. The objectives of this study were to compare the infection outcome and functional results between the one-stage and two-stage replacement procedures. Functional results were evaluated using the IKS score, KOOS score, and SF-12 quality of life score.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients underwent a two-stage replacement procedure and 21 patients a one-stage replacement. The average follow-up was 22 months after surgery. The infection was cured in 78% of patients who underwent a two-stage replacement and 90% of patients who underwent a one-stage replacement (P=0.3). The flexion range of motion was significantly better in the one-stage group than in the two-stage group (P=0.04). Results of the IKS score and of the KOOS score were better in the one-stage group. No difference was observed for the SF-12 score.

CONCLUSION

The one-stage replacement procedure for periprosthetic knee infection was associated with a similar healing frequency as the two-stage replacement procedure, and with better knee function.

Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection: Established Patient Relationships May Impact Medical Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Choosing the intervention for prosthetic joint infections, whether debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), or explant and antibiotic spacer placement, is multifactorial. One characteristic that may influence this decision is a previously established relationship with the patient. We hypothesized that patients receiving their arthroplasty at an outside institution and presenting with infection would be more likely to undergo removal of their implant without an attempt at DAIR compared to patients who underwent primary arthroplasty at the investigating institution.

METHODS

The institutional database was queried for primary total hip and knee arthroplasty infections. Manual review of medical records was performed, excluding patients who did not meet the Musculoskeletal Infection Society definition of infection. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, presenting infection characteristics, and surgical intervention were collected. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the independent predictors of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 270 patients were included for analysis. McPherson score (P < .001) and duration of symptoms (P < .001) were associated with subsequent treatment. Additionally, when controlling for age, gender, symptom duration category, procedure, McPherson score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists category, patients with index procedures at outside hospitals were more likely to undergo implant removal (odds ratio, 36.30; 95% confidence interval, 8.16-161.51; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving their primary arthroplasty at an outside hospital and presenting with infection are more likely to undergo removal of hardware as their initial treatment. To avoid treatment bias, institutional protocols should be implemented to guide the shared decision-making process.

Reconsidering Strategies for Managing Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Using Decision Analytics to Find the Optimal Strategy Between One-Stage and Two-Stage Total Knee Revision

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty is a growing concern, as the demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) expands annually. Although 2-stage revision is considered the gold standard in management, there is substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this strategy. One-stage revision is associated with lower mortality rates and better quality of life, and there has been increased interest in utilizing the 1-stage strategy. However, surgeons are faced with a difficult decision regarding which strategy to use to treat these infections, considering uncertainty with respect to eradication of infection, quality of life, and societal costs with each strategy. The purpose of the current study was to use decision analysis to determine the optimal decision for the management of PJI following TKA.

METHODS

An expected-value decision tree was constructed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with 1-stage and 2-stage revision. Two decision trees were created: Decision Tree 1 was constructed for all pathogens, and Decision Tree 2 was constructed solely for difficult-to-treat infections, including methicillin-resistant infections. Values for parameters in the decision model, such as mortality rate, reinfection rate, and need for additional surgeries, were derived from the literature. Medical costs were derived from Medicare data. Sensitivity analysis determined which parameters in the decision model had the most influence on the optimal strategy.

RESULTS

In both decision trees, the 1-stage strategy produced greater health utility while also being more cost-effective. In the Monte Carlo simulation for Decision Trees 1 and 2, 1-stage was the dominant strategy in about 85% and 69% of the trials, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the reinfection and 1-year mortality rates were the most sensitive parameters influencing the optimal decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite 2-stage revision being considered the current gold standard for infection eradication in patients with PJI following TKA, the optimal decision that produced the highest quality of life was 1-stage revision. These results should be considered in shared decision-making with patients who experience PJI following TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is sonication of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers useful in two-stage revision of prosthetic joint infection?

BACKGROUND

In a two-stage exchange protocol for prosthetic joint infection (PJI), bacteria surviving over the antibiotic-loaded cement spacers may cause the persistence of infection with renewed clinical symptoms following the surgery. Culture after sonication of removed prosthesis is more sensitive than conventional periprosthetic tissue culture for the microbiological diagnosis of PJI. The aim of this study was to assess whether sonication of the spacer at the time of the second-stage procedure may improve the diagnosis of persistent PJI.

METHODS

We evaluated by microbiological culture the sonication fluid from 222 cement spacers implanted in a two-stage exchange protocol in 157 patients affected by PJI. A mean of 1.3 (range, 1-4) spacer per patient was performed.

RESULTS

In 53 out of 222 spacers analyzed infection was confirmed according to the MSIS criteria. In 22 cases the infection was confirmed by both cultures on periprosthetic tissue and on sonication fluid from the spacers. In 23 cases persistent PJI was identified because of only cultures of periprosthetic tissue and 8 because of results obtained after spacer sonication. The sensitivity of periprosthetic tissue cultures was higher than that of cultures performed on sonication fluid (84.9% vs 56.6%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though sonication of cement spacers has performances inferior than those reported for prosthesis, it can be considered a complementary method to unravel persistent infection during a two-stage exchange protocol for PJI.

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.

Comparison of two-stage revision arthroplasty and intramedullary arthrodesis in patients with failed infected knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with significant bone loss and compromised soft-tissues is challenging and the final results are often inferior to patient's expectation. The objective of this study was to present a comparison of outcomes in patients with failed infected TKA treated with two-stage revision TKA or knee arthrodesis and to assess clinical and functional results, implant survival and infection recurrence. The hypothesis was that an arthrodesis may result in beneficial effects on patients' outcome.

METHODS

Clinical data of 81 patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee joint were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 36 patients had been treated within a two-stage exchange procedure and reimplantation of a modular intramedullary arthodesis nail and 45 patients with revision TKA. Patients were treated according to the same structured treatment algorithm. Clinical and functional evaluation was performed using the Oxford knee score (OKS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 32.9 ± 14.0 months. The rate of definitely free of infection at last follow-up in the arthrodesis group was 32 of 36 (88.9%) and 36 of 45 (80.0%) in the revision TKA group (p = 0.272). Mean VAS for pain in the arthrodesis group was 3.1 ± 1.4 compared to 3.2 ± 1.6 in the revision TKA group (p = 0.636). The OKS in the arthrodesis group was 38.7 ± 8.9 and 36.5 ± 8.9 (p = 0.246) in patients with revision TKA. Rate of revisions in the revision-TKA group was 2.8 ± 3.7 compared to 1.2 ± 2.4 in the arthrodesis group (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of PJI needs a distinct therapy with possible fallback strategies in case of failure. A knee arthrodesis is a limb salvage procedure that showed no significant benefits on the considered outcome factors compared to revision TKA but is associated with significantly lower revision rate. After exhausted treatment modalities, a knee arthrodesis should be considered as an option in selected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

[Local antibiotic therapy]

The treatment of superficial wound infections with local antibiotics is considered to be problematic as it is accompanied by an increased risk of resistance development and ineffectiveness in deeper regions. On the contrary, the local application of antibiotics is useful in arthroplasty and necessary if implants are utilized. The reason for this is the prevention of a rapid biofilm formation on foreign implants and a resulting infection may remain undiscovered until it becomes chronic. Apart from exogenous material, necrotic tissue (e. g. bone sequestra) provides suitable retreat areas for pathogens in the body. Because of the characteristics of bone and joint infections and an exceptional infection recurrence rate, a combined approach is required. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is able to reduce the number of pathogens acquired by perioperative contamination or hematogenic spread from another focus of infection; however, systemically applied antibiotics often fail to form an effective colonization barrier around the implant because their ability to penetrate the bone is relatively low. On the other hand, the high concentration of locally released antibiotics leads to an effective protection of the implant from bacteria in situ. Thus, for the treatment of implant-associated infections, systemic and local application of anti-infective agents is a reliable adjuvant measure that improves the therapeutic success. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is the most commonly used local drug carrier. Based on clinical and microbiological results, microbiologists and infectious disease experts together with the surgeon and pharmacist determine which anti-infective agents are indicated for systemic and local, PMMA cement-related application. Because there is no evident concept for the local application, unlike the recommendation for systemic use of anti-infective agents, this review article describes which aspects should be taken into account.

Does Prior Failed Debridement Compromise the Outcome of Subsequent Two-Stage Revision Done for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

There has been a debate regarding the outcomes of 2-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and implant retention (DAIR) had been carried out previously. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of prior failed DAIR (F-DAIR) on the outcomes of 2-stage revision TKA done for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 184 knees that completed 2-stage revision TKA for PJI, operated by a single surgeon between January 2000 and July 2011. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: (1) with previous F-DAIR (88 knees) and (2) direct 2-stage revision (96 knees).

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 5.3 years, the failure rate was 23.86% (21/88 knees) in the F-DAIR group and 15.62% (15/96) in the direct 2-stage revision group. Prior F-DAIR procedure was associated with approximately twice the risk of failure compared to direct 2-stage surgery (hazards ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.01-3.714, P = .047). Excluding PJIs caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Pseudomonas from analysis revealed similar failure rates between the 2 groups. The Knee Society Clinical Score, Knee Society Functional Score, and final range of motion at final follow-up were lower in the F-DAIR group. Incidence of culture negativity and infection with resistant organisms was higher in the F-DAIR group. The rates of eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas infection were much lower in the F-DAIR group.

CONCLUSION

A failed prior DAIR results in higher failure rates, lower functional outcome, and increased risk of wound-related complications.

Diagnosing periprosthetic hip joint low-grade infection via arthroscopic neo synovium biopsies

BACKGROUND

There is currently a lack of consensus regarding the most effective diagnostic algorithm for cases of supposed low-grade infection after total hip arthoplasty (THA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess reliability in the use of biopsies, obtained by hip arthroscopy, to detect a periprosthetic hip joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

From 2012 to 2016, diagnostic arthroscopy of the hip joint was performed in 20 patients with a supposed PJI following THA. In 10 of these patients, the THA was revised for various reasons after diagnostic arthroscopy. The microbiological and histological findings of the biopsies obtained by arthroscopy were compared to findings from intraoperative samples of the revision arthroplasty.

RESULTS

For arthroscopic biopsies, we detected a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.00), a specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.36-1.00), a positive predictive value of 0.80 (95% CI 0.28-1.00), and a negative predictive value of 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-1.00). The accuracy was 0.90.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of arthroscopic biopsies represents a helpful tool to verify or rule out a PJI in selected patients. Nevertheless, minimally invasive diagnostic tools (e.g., laboratory analysis and aspiration) should be utilized beforehand.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Is Associated With Increased Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality Relative to Noninfectious Revisions

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a devastating complication. The short-term morbidity profile of revision TKA performed for PJI relative to non-PJI revisions is poorly characterized. The purpose of this study is to determine 30-day postoperative outcomes after revision TKA for PJI, relative to primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2015 was queried for primary and revision TKA cases. Revision TKA cases were categorized into PJI and non-PJI cohorts. Differences in 30-day outcomes including postoperative complications, readmissions, operative time, and length of stay were compared using bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 175,761 TKAs were included in this study, with 162,981 (92.7%) primary TKAs and 12,780 (7.3%) revision TKAs, of which 2196 (17.2%) revisions were performed for PJI. When compared to aseptic revision TKA, multivariate analysis demonstrated that PJI revisions had a significantly higher risk of major early postoperative complications including death (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.25) and sepsis (OR 8.73). In addition, nonhome discharge (OR 1.75), readmissions (OR 1.67), and length of stay (+2.1 days) were all greater relative to non-PJI revisions.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing a large, prospectively collected, national database, we found that revision TKA for PJI has a greater risk of short-term morbidity and mortality and requires a higher utilization of healthcare resources. These results have implications for patient counseling and alternative payment models that may eventually include revision TKA.

Insufficient sensitivity of joint aspiration during the two-stage exchange of the hip with spacers

Background

Evaluation of infection persistence during the two-stage exchange of the hip is challenging. Joint aspiration before reconstruction is supposed to rule out infection persistence. Sensitivity and specificity of synovial fluid culture and synovial leucocyte count for detecting infection persistence during the two-stage exchange of the hip were evaluated.

Methods

Ninety-two aspirations before planned joint reconstruction during the two-stage exchange with spacers of the hip were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of synovial fluid culture was 4.6 and 94.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of synovial leucocyte count at a cut-off value of 2000 cells/μl was 25.0 and 96.9%. C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) values were significantly higher before prosthesis removal and reconstruction or spacer exchange (p = 0.00; p = 0.013 and p = 0.039; p = 0.002) in the infection persistence group. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values before prosthesis removal and reconstruction or spacer exchange for ESR were lower (0.516 and 0.635) than for CRP (0.720 and 0.671).

Conclusions

Synovial fluid culture and leucocyte count cannot rule out infection persistence during the two-stage exchange of the hip.

Infection after total knee arthroplasty and its gold standard surgical treatment: Spacers used in two-stage revision arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating postoperative complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Treatment varies depending on the type of infection, but two-stage revision arthroplasty using an antibiotic spacer is considered to be the gold standard of treatment. Several types of spacers are available at the moment, each with different benefits and indications, and these spacers may be improved in the future. The primary goals of selecting a given spacer are to locally deliver antibiotics and to preserve soft tissue. Use of an appropriate spacer subsequently decreases the difficulty of the second revision, the operating time, and ultimately the risk of postoperative complications.

Two-stage knee arthrodesis with a modular intramedullary nail due to septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty with extensor mechanism deficiency

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication and reconstruction after failed revision total knee arthroplasty with significant bone loss and compromised soft-tissues can be challenging. Objective of this study was to assess clinical and functional results, implant survival and infection recurrence rates in patients treated with two-stage arthrodesis after failed revision TKA with extensor mechanism deficiencies due to PJI, and to identify the factors that affect outcomes after surgery.

METHODS

Thirty seven patients with PJI treated within a two-stage exchange and reimplantation of an arthrodesis nail between 2008 and 2014 were included. Systemic and local risk factors were graded preoperatively according to McPherson et al. All patients were treated according to a structured treatment algorithm. Clinical and functional evaluation was performed using the Oxford Knee Score and the Visual Analogue Scale.

RESULTS

Thirty two of 37 patients (86.5%) were graded as free of infection. Five patients (13.5%) had recurrent infection after arthrodesis with the need of revision surgery. Mean leg-length discrepancy was 2.2cm. The mean VAS for pain was three, the mean Oxford Knee Score was 38±9. Total implant survival at a 74month follow-up was 74.3% (95% CI: 45.4 to 91.1%), as determined by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Local McPherson Score, as well as number of revisions was found to be of significant influence to the survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic failure of revision knee arthroplasty can be effectively treated with two-stage arthrodesis using a modular intramedullary nail, providing a stable and painless limb with satisfactory functional results and acceptable infection eradication rates.

Efficacy of Open Debridement and Polyethylene Exchange in Strictly Selected Patients with Infection after Total Knee Arthroplasty

Purpose

To assess the efficacy of open debridement and polyethylene exchange (ODPE) combined with proper antibiotic therapy in strictly selected patients with infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and analyze factors associated with treatment failure.

Materials and Methods

From January 2010 to January 2014, 25 cases that underwent ODPE under the diagnosis of infection within four weeks after TKA or acute hematogenous infection within five days of symptom onset were reviewed in this study.

Results

Treatment was successful in 22 out of 25 cases (88.0%). Factors associated with failure were accompanying infection (periprosthetic infection in the ipsilateral foot, cervical parotid abscess, and masticator space abscess) and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) before TKA. Resistant bacteria did not entail a risk. On clinical results, the mean postoperative Lysholm score and Korean Knee score were 81.4 and 79.4, respectively, the knee range of motion was 115.4°±12.9°, and duration of hospitalization was 32.3±8.4 days. On radiographic results, 3.47±1.56 mm joint line elevation and a valgus change of 0.61°±2.35° in knee alignment were observed.

Conclusions

ODPE combined with appropriate antibiotics therapy could be a useful treatment method for infection after TKA if the procedure is performed within a symptom duration of five days or less in the absence of accompanying infection in patients whose indication for TKA was not RA.