Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

Innovations in the Isolation and Treatment of Biofilms in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Comprehensive Review of Current and Emerging Therapies in Bone and Joint Infection Management

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating complication of joint arthroplasty surgeries that are often complicated by biofilm formation. The development of biofilms makes PJI treatment challenging as they create a barrier against antibiotics and host immune responses. This review article provides an overview of the current understanding of biofilm formation, factors that contribute to their production, and the most common organisms involved in this process. This article focuses on the identification of biofilms, as well as current methodologies and emerging therapies in the management of biofilms in PJI.

Articulating Spacers in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Surgical Technique and Outcomes

Although one-stage exchange arthroplasty is gaining popularity, two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. Use of an articulating spacer for this procedure offers an avenue for maintaining hip motion and controlled weight-bearing, allowing local antibiotic elution. However, there is no uniform consensus on the optimal surgical protocol for using articulating spacers. This review describes the surgical technique for undertaking a first-stage exchange arthroplasty using an articulating spacer and discusses the pertinent literature on key concepts relating to periprosthetic joint infections in total hip arthroplasty to guide effective surgical decision making in these patients.

What Is the Most Effective Treatment for Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis?: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review comparing the failure rates of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), one-stage exchange arthroplasty/revision (OSR), and 2-stage exchange arthroplasty/revision (TSR) for RA patients with PJI and identify risk factors in the RA population associated with increased treatment failure rate.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase databases were screened with the terms "rheumatoid arthritis," "total joint arthroplasty," "prosthetic joint infection," and "treatment for PJI" on August 29, 2021. Four hundred ninety-one studies were screened, of which 86 were evaluated. The primary outcome evaluated was failure of surgical treatment for PJI.

RESULTS

Ten retrospective cohort studies were included after full-text screening, yielding 401 patients with RA. Additional demographic and PJI management data were obtained for 149 patients. Patients with RA who underwent TSR demonstrated a lower failure rate (26.8%) than both DAIR (60.1%) and OSR (39.2%) (χ2 = 37.463, p < 0.00001). Patients with RA who underwent DAIR had a 2.27 (95% CI, 1.66-3.10) times higher risk of experiencing treatment failure than those who underwent TSR. Among risk factors, there was a significant difference in the C-reactive protein of patients who did vs. did not experience treatment failure (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

TSR has a higher rate of success in the management of PJI patients with RA compared with DAIR and OSR. The complete removal of the infected prosthesis and delayed reimplantation may lower the treatment failure rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023

OBJECTIVE

The inclusion of patient research partners (PRPs) in research projects is increasingly recognised and recommended in rheumatology. The level of involvement of PRPs in translational research in rheumatology remains unknown, while in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), it has been reported to be 2% in 2020. Therefore, we aimed to assess the involvement of PRPs in recent translational studies and RCTs in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of the 80 most recent articles (40 translational studies and 40 RCTs) from four target diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and lower extremity osteoarthritis. We selected 20 papers from each disease, published up until 1 March 2023, in rheumatology and general scientific journals. In each paper, the extent of PRP involvement was assessed. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 40 translational studies, none reported PRP involvement. Of 40 RCTs, eight studies (20%) reported PRP involvement. These trials were mainly from Europe (75%) and North America (25%). Most of them (75%) were non-industry funded. The type of PRP involvement was reported in six of eight studies: six studies reported PRP participation in the study design or design of the intervention and two of them in the interpretation of the results. All the trials reporting the number of PRPs (75%), involved at least two PRPs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a worldwide movement advocating for increased patient involvement in research, PRPs in translational research and RCTs in rheumatology are significantly under-represented. This limited involvement of PRPs in research highlights a persistent gap between the existing recommendations and actual practice.

Design Characteristics and Recruitment Rates for Randomized Trials of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection Management: A Systematic Review

Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) present a major management challenge for practicing orthopedic surgeons and infectious disease physicians. There are few high-quality data to inform treatment guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to report the design characteristics and recruitment rates for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PJI management. Trials were considered eligible for inclusion if human participants were randomized to any management intervention for PJI. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register until the end of May 2023. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112646). We identified 15 published RCTs with a total of 1743 participants with PJI. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of successfully recruited participants was 63 (38-140), with 0.28 (0.13-0.96) enrolments per site per month. Only four trials (36.4%) achieved the target recruitment. All RCTs applied different primary endpoints and varying definitions of a 'good' outcome. Despite recent improvements, PJI RCTs are characterized by slow recruitment and heterogeneous endpoint assessments, which preclude synthesis in a standard meta-analytic framework. To inform international guidelines, future PJI trials should be run as multi-country trials at high-recruiting sites.

In Vitro Efficacy of Dalbavancin as a Long-Acting Anti-Biofilm Agent Loaded in Bone Cement

Based on previous studies by our group in which we demonstrated that dalbavancin loaded in bone cement had good elution capacity for the treatment of biofilm-related periprosthetic infections, we now assess the anti-biofilm activity of dalbavancin and compare it with that of vancomycin over a 3-month period. We designed an in vitro model in which we calculated the percentage reduction in log cfu/mL counts of sonicated steel discs contaminated with staphylococci and further exposed to bone cement discs loaded with 2.5% or 5% vancomycin and dalbavancin at various timepoints (24 h, 48 h, 1 week, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months). In addition, we tested the anti-biofilm activity of eluted vancomycin and dalbavancin at each timepoint based on a 96-well plate model in which we assessed the percentage reduction in metabolic activity. We observed a significant decrease in the dalbavancin concentration from 2 weeks of incubation, with sustained anti-biofilm activity up to 3 months. In the case of vancomycin, we observed a significant decrease at 1 week. The concentration gradually increased, leading to significantly lower anti-biofilm activity. The percentage reduction in cfu/mL counts was higher for dalbavancin than for vancomycin at both the 2.5% and the 5% concentrations. The reduction in log cfu/mL counts was higher for S. epidermidis than for S. aureus and was particularly more notable for 5% dalbavancin at 3 months. In addition, the percentage reduction in metabolic activity also decreased at 3 months in 5% dalbavancin and 5% vancomycin, with more notable values recorded for the latter.

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

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.