Risk Factors for Early Hip or Knee Prosthetic Joint Infection (PJI): Analysis of a Nationwide American Insurance Claims Dataset

Perioperative Demographic and Laboratory Characteristics of Failed Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention: Can We Determine Which Patients Will Fail?

BACKGROUND

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) are the mainstays surgical treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, reoperation following DAIR is common and the risk factors for DAIR failure remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the perioperative characteristics of patients who failed initial DAIR treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 83 patients who underwent DAIR for acute PJI within 3 months following index surgery from 2011 to 2022, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Surgical outcomes were categorized using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society outcome reporting tool (Tiers 1 to 4). Patient demographics, laboratory data, and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who had failed (Tiers 3 and 4) (n = 32) and successful (Tiers 1 and 2) (n = 51) DAIR treatment. Logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

After logistic regression, Charlson Comorbidity Index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.57; P = .003), preoperative C-reactive protein (OR: 1.06; P = .014), synovial white blood cell (OR: 1.14; P = .008), and polymorphonuclear cell (PMN%) counts (OR: 1.05; P = .015) were independently associated with failed DAIR. Compared with total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty patients (OR: 6.08; P = .001) were at increased risk of DAIR failure. The type of organism and time from primary surgery were not correlated with DAIR failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had failed initial DAIR tended to have significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, C-reactive protein, synovial white blood cell, and PMN%. The total knee arthroplasty DAIRs were more likely to fail than the total hip arthroplasty DAIRs. These characteristics should be considered when planning acute PJI management, as certain patients may be at higher risk for DAIR failure and may benefit from other surgical treatments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

Treatment and Outcomes of Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Systematic Review of 225 Cases

BACKGROUND

Fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after a total joint arthroplasty are a rare, yet severe, occurrence not often reported in the literature. Unlike in bacterial PJIs, no clear consensus exists on fungal PJI optimal management.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the PubMed and Embase databases. Manuscripts were assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was applied for quality assessment. Individual demographic, clinical, and treatment information was retrieved from included manuscripts.

RESULTS

Seventy one patients who had a PJI of the hip and 126 of the knee were included. Infection recurrence occurred in 29.6% and 18.3% of patients with hip or knee PJI, respectively. Patients who had knee PJIs recurrence had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). For knee PJIs, infection recurrence was more common in patients with Candida albicans (CA) PJIs (P = .022). Two-stage exchange arthroplasty was the most common procedure in both joints. Multivariate analysis found that CCI ≥ 3 was associated with an 18.5-fold increase in the risk of knee PJI recurrence (Odds ratio [OR] = 18.57). Additional risk factors for recurrence in the knee included CA etiology (OR = 3.56) and C-reactive protein at presentation ≥ 6 (OR = 6.54). Compared to debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, 2-stage procedure was a protective factor for PJI recurrence in the knee (OR = 0.18). No risk factors were found in patients who had hip PJIs.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of fungal PJIs varies widely, but 2-stage revision is the most common. Risk factors for knee fungal PJI recurrence include elevated CCI, infection by CA, and high C-reactive protein at presentation.

Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the knee society score following revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

No previous study has evaluated the MCID for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the Knee Society Score (KSS), for revision TKA.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 270 patients who underwent revision TKA at a single institution was analysed. Clinical assessment was performed preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years using Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Knee (KSKS) Scores, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). MCID was evaluated with a three-pronged methodology, using (1) anchor-based method with linear regression, (2) anchor-based method with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under curve (AUC), (3) distribution-based method with standard deviation (SD). The anchors used were improvement in OKS ≥ 5, patient satisfaction, and implant survivorship following revision TKA.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 70% females, with mean age of 69.0 years, that underwent unilateral revision TKA. The MCID determined by anchor-based linear regression method using OKS was 6.3 for KSFS, and 6.6 for KSKS. The MCID determined by anchor-based ROC was between 15 and 20 for KSFS (AUC: satisfaction = 71.8%, survivorship = 61.4%) and between 33 and 34 for KSKS (AUC: satisfaction = 76.3%, survivorship = 67.1%). The MCID determined by distribution-based method of 0.5 SD was 11.7 for KSFS and 11.9 for KSKS.

CONCLUSION

The MCID of 6.3 points for KSFS, and 6.6 points for KSKS, is a useful benchmark for future studies looking to compare revision against primary TKA outcomes. Clinically, the MCID between 15 and 20 for KSFS and between 33 and 34 for KSKS is a powerful tool for discriminating patients with successful outcomes after revision TKA. Implant survivorship is an objective and naturally dichotomous outcome measure that complements the subjective measure of patient satisfaction, which future MCID studies could consider utilizing as anchors in ROC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.