Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:553. [PMID: 27724919 PMCID: PMC5057405 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4]

One-Stage Revision Using Cementless Reconstruction for Chronically Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Average of 11 Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Although interest in one-stage revision has increased in recent years, long-term follow-up reports remain notably scarce. This study aimed to present the 11-year outcomes of cementless one-stage revision for chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA), including infection-free survivorship, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and complications.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis conducted between 2010 and 2016 included 126 patients who had chronically infected THA and underwent one-stage revision using cementless reconstruction. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess postoperative survival, while Cox regression analysis identified risk factors for reinfection. Updated postoperative imaging, Harris Hip Scores, and complications were recorded. Successful infection treatment was defined as the absence of clinical symptoms of infection during follow-up.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 11 years (range, eight to 14), 16 patients experienced infection recurrence, resulting in a 10-year infection-free survival rate of 85.4%. Cox regression analysis identified age ≥ 65 years (HR [hazard ratio] 3.0, 95% CI [confidence interval] 1.2 to 8.6; P = 0.02) and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 8.1; P = 0.03) as significant risk factors for reinfection. The presence of a sinus tract, prolonged operative time, culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, methicillin-resistant pathogen infection, and prior surgery for infection were not associated with recurrence. Among the patients, two experienced recurrent dislocations and one had aseptic loosening, leading to a 10-year aseptic rerevision-free survival rate of 97.0%. The mean postoperative Harris Hip Scores at the latest follow-up was 77.9 points (range, 68.5 to 86.7; P < 0.001). Complications occurred in 26 patients (23.4%), and the 10-year reoperation-free survival rate was 78.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

A one-stage revision using cementless reconstruction for infected THA demonstrated a favorable infection control rate and sustained satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, further studies with higher-level evidence are needed to validate these findings.

What Is the Role of Local Antimicrobial Protection for One-Stage Revision for Peri-Prosthetic Hip Infection?

The aim of this review is to investigate the effective role of local antimicrobial protection for one-stage cemented and cementless hip revision surgery. Twelve studies reporting the results of cemented single-stage procedures with a minimum two-year follow-up were reviewed. When pooling together the data, no infection recurrence was observed on average in 83.3% of the patients (a range of 75.0% to 100%). Only two papers included patients treated without the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement, with an average infection control of 95.9% in a total of 195 patients. This figure appears to be better than the 80.7% infection control obtained by pooling together all the remaining studies. Concerning cementless one-stage revision, a total of 17 studies, reporting on 521 patients, showed an average of 90.0% (range 56.8% to 100%) no infection recurrence at a minimum two-year follow-up. No comparative study investigated cementless revision with or without local antibacterial protection. The pooled data showed an average infection control of 86.7%, without the application of local antibacterials, compared to 90.1% to 100% with local antimicrobial protection, depending on the technology used. No statistical difference could be found, either considering local antibacterial strategies alone or pooled together. No side effects had been reported by any local antibacterial technique. Local antibacterial protection for one-stage hip revision surgery, although safe and largely performed in the clinical setting, appears to still rely mainly on experts' opinions with no prospective or comparative trial, hence no definitive conclusion can be drawn concerning its effective role in one-stage hip revision surgery.

The heavy burden and treatment challenges of fungal periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review of 489 joints

BACKGROUND

Fungal periprosthetic joint infection (FPJI) is an infrequent but devastating complication that imposes a heavy burden on patients. At present, a consensus regarding the most optimal surgical option for patients with FPJI, the ideal duration of systemic antifungal treatment, and many other issues has not been reached.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed on the PubMed and Embase databases. The search criteria employed were as follows: (fungal OR candida OR mycotic) AND periprosthetic joint infection. Initially, the titles and abstracts were screened, and subsequently, studies deemed irrelevant or duplicative were eliminated. Following this, the complete texts of remaining articles were thoroughly examined. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 489 joints in 24 articles were screened out. We further extracted the demographic characteristics (age, gender, body mass index, etc.), clinical presentation, fungal species, presence of bacterial coinfection, surgical methods, systemic and local antifungal therapy, and treatment outcomes. Subgroup data were analyzed according to fungal species and bacterial coinfection. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the risk factors associated with the infection recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 506 fungi were identified within 489 joints. The most prevalent fungal species were Candida albicans (41.5%). Out of 247 joints (50.5%) presenting with concurrent fungal and bacterial infections. Among the initial surgical interventions, two-stage exchange was the most common (59.1%). The infection recurrence rates of DAIR, resection arthroplasty, two-stage, one-stage, and three-stage exchange were 81.4%, 53.1%, 47.7%, 35.0%, and 30%, respectively. The mean duration of systemic antifungal therapy was 12.8 weeks. The most common drugs used both in intravenous (55.9%) and oral therapy (84.0%) were fluconazole. The proportion of patients who used antifungal drugs after replantation (two-stage and three-stage) was 87.6%. 33.2% of cement spacer or fixed cement contained antifungal drugs, of which amphotericin B was the main choice (82.7%). FPJI caused by candida albicans (OR = 1.717, p = 0.041) and DAIR (OR = 8.433, p = 0.003) were risk factors for infection recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage exchange remains the most commonly used surgical approach. The reliability of one- and three-exchange needs further evaluation due to the small sample size. Antifungal-loaded cement spacers, and direct intra-articular injections of antimycotics after reimplatation should be strongly considered. Medication is not standardized but rather individualized according to microbiology and the status of patients.

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.

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.

Reimplantation after Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Role of Microbiology

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is among the most feared orthopedic complications. Critical questions are whether the infection is completely resolved before reimplantation and what the clinical significance of positive culture is at reimplantation. The aim of this study was to determine whether a correlation exits between culture results at reimplantation after spacer insertion for hip and knee PJI and treatment failure rate. The data of 84 patients who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip or knee PJI were reviewed and the results of intraoperative culture at reimplantation were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Correlations were sought between these patterns and treatment outcome. Our data indicate no evidence for a correlation between positive culture at reimplantation and greater risk of treatment failure. Nonetheless, we noted a higher, albeit statistically not significant rate of treatment failure in patients with at least two samples testing positive. The role of microbiology at reimplantation remains unclear, but a positive culture might signal increased risk for subsequent implant failure. Further studies are needed to elucidate the implications of this finding.

Risk factors for failure after cementless femoral revision THA: a consecutive series of 105 cases

INTRODUCTION

Cementless femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) after periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening or infection is a challenging surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and reasons for failure after two-stage septic revision, periprosthetic fracture or aseptic loosening that may reveal a rationale for cementless RTHA in two-stage revisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 105 cases using cementless femoral revision prostheses were evaluated retrospectively. Indications for revision were 39 two-stage revisions after infection, 49 aseptic loosenings, and 17 periprosthetic fractures. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed using infection with or without removal of the implant as an endpoint.

RESULTS

Incidence of infection with or without implant removal was significantly higher in patients treated for periprosthetic fractures compared to two-stage revisions or aseptic loosening (log-rank P < 0.0001). The mean follow-up period was 6.4 (2.0-13.7) years. Using infection with or without implant removal as the endpoint, 12 patients were diagnosed after the index operation resulting in a cumulative risk after 13.7 years of 29.9% (95% CI 0-61.2).

CONCLUSION

Cementless revision using a modular tapered device is reliable with respect to reinfection risk in two-stage procedures.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI)—Results of One-Stage Revision with Antibiotic-Impregnated Cancellous Allograft Bone—A Retrospective Cohort Study

Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), considering control of infection, functional results as well as quality of life. Difficulties in treatment derive from the formation of biofilms within a few days after infection. Biofilms are tolerant to systemically applied antibiotics, requiring extreme concentrations for a prolonged period. Minimum biofilm eradicating concentrations (MBEC) are only feasible by the local application of antibiotics. One established approach is the use of allograft bone as a carrier, granting a sustained release of antibiotics in very high concentrations after appropriate impregnation. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of reinfection after a one-stage revision of infected hip or knee prostheses, using antibiotic-impregnated allograft bone as the carrier and avoiding cement. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 January 2018, 87 patients with PJI, according to MSIS, underwent a one-stage revision with antibiotic-impregnated cancellous allograft bone. An amount of 17 patients had insufficient follow-ups. There were 70 remaining patients (34 male, 36 female) with a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 2–15.6) and with a mean age of 68.2 years (range 31.5–86.9). An amount of 38 hips and 11 knees were implanted without any cement; and 21 knees were implanted with moderate cementing at the articular surface with stems always being uncemented. Within 2 years after surgery, 6 out of 70 patients (8.6%, CI 2–15.1) showed reinfection and after more than 2 years, an additional 6 patients showed late-onset infection. Within 2 years after surgery, 11 out of 70 patients (15.7%, CI 7.2–24.2) had an implant failure for any reason (including infection) and after more than 2 years, an additional 7 patients had an implant failure. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis for all 87 patients, the estimated survival for reinfection was 93.9% (CI 88.8–99.1) at 1 year, 89.9% (CI 83.2–96.6) at 2 years and 81.5% (CI 72.1–90.9) at 5 years. The estimated survival for implant failure for any reason was 90.4% (CI 84.1–96.7) at 1 year, 80.9% (CI 72.2–89.7) at 2 years and 71.1% (CI 60.3–81.8) at 5 years. One-stage revision with antibiotic-impregnated cancellous allograft bone grants comparable results regarding infection control as with multiple stages, while shortening rehabilitation, improving quality of life for the patients and reducing costs for the health care system.

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Background

Periprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

Results

The infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

Septic Failure After One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: Microbiological Implications

BACKGROUND

The microbiological implications of septic failure after 1-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip remain unclear.

METHODS

Information was gathered on comorbidities, previous procedures, preoperative and postoperative microbiology results, methods of detection, and antibiotic resistance patterns, for all patients, who developed septic failure after 1-stage exchange for PJI of the hip performed at our institution during 2001-2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were identified. Septic failure was diagnosed a mean of 1.7 (standard deviation 2.3, range 0-11.8) years later. Although the spectrum of microorganisms was similar to preoperative, in the majority of patients (55%), the initial microorganism(s) was (were) replaced by (a) totally different microorganism(s). Overall, there was a decrease in the number of polymicrobial PJIs. The number of patients with high virulent microorganisms decreased significantly from 52 to 36 (P = .034). The number of PJIs due to gram-negative pathogens remained similar (11 vs 14, P = .491). The number of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci, fluoroquinolone-resistant streptococci, enterococci, and fungi changed from 8 to 15, 0 to 2, 7 to 3, and 1 to 2, respectively, but these changes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The majority of reinfections is caused by different infecting bacteria, hence it is essential to perform a new diagnostic workup and not base treatment decisions (solely) on historical cultures. We were furthermore unable to irrefutably prove that, from a microbiological point of view, septic failure after 1-stage exchange comes with increased challenges. Given the time interval to failure, we propose that a longer follow-up of these patients is needed, than previously suggested.

The '2-in-1' stage: indications, technique & results

Prosthetic joint infections remain an ongoing challenge for orthopaedic surgeons with an interest in knee arthroplasty, which relates to their often difficult diagnoses, need for multiple surgeries, increased technical and financial requirements. Peri-prosthetic joint infection is devastating complication for the patient and with the current literature unable to either demonstrate superiority of one or two stage revision then we should continue to assess on a case by case basis. The use of a '2 in 1' single-stage approach has been recently been promoted as a form of single stage revision for infection on account of the potential for reduction in risks, costs, and complications. Where it is safe to do so, a single stage procedure can avoid several of the drawbacks which may occur with a formal two stage approach. Particularly, it can reduce the risk of post-operative stiffness and arthrofibrosis which can be associated with two stage surgery. Use of a single stage may be more cost effective, by saving the patient having to undergo a second major procedure. This article reviews the indications for its use, technique and results. The use of '2-in-1' single-stage revision can be considered as an effective option for treating infection following TKR and cases with associated bone loss.

Favourable outcomes of repeat one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip

AIMS

One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of eight repeat septic revisions (25%) developed a further infection-related failure, and the five-year infection-free survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57 to 92). Nine (28%) underwent a further all-cause revision and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 74% (95% CI 52 to 88). Neither the MSIS classification of the host status (p = 0.423) nor the limb status (p = 0.366) was significantly associated with further infection-related failure.

CONCLUSION

Repeat one-stage exchange for PJI in THA is associated with a favourable five-year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival. Notably, the rate of infection control is encouraging when compared with the reported rates after repeat two-stage exchange. The results can be used to counsel patients and help clinicians make informed decisions about treatment. With the available number of patients, further infection-related failure was not associated with the MSIS host or limb status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):27-33.

New Technique for Custom-Made Spacers in Septic Two-Stage Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasties

The choice of spacer in the interim phase of two-stage revision hip arthroplasty is crucial. Conventional concepts like a Girdlestone situation, handformed or preformed bone cement spacers show complications like soft-tissue contractions, abrasion of bone cement particles, dislocation, breakage and a low level of mobility in the interim phase. To address these disadvantages, the senior author developed a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties using prosthetic implants with individualized antibiotic mixture in the cement applying a mechanical inferior cementation method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of these spacers with respect to their non-inferiority in terms of reinfection and survival-rate of the new implant and to describe the complications associated with this procedure. Our collective consisted of 130 patients with a median follow-up of nearly five years. With a reinfect-free rate of 92% and a spacer-related complication rate of 10% (8% articular dislocation, 1% periprosthetic joint fracture, 1% breakage), this procedure seems to be safe and superior regarding complications compared to conventional concepts. Further studies are necessary to show the clinical benefit of this procedure.

Improving outcomes in acute and chronic periprosthetic hip and knee joint infection with a multidisciplinary approach

AIMS

Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT).

METHODS

Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception.

CONCLUSION

Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509-514.

Management of peri-prosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty using a long-stemmed cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS)

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence on techniques for management of peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) in the context of severe proximal femoral bone loss. Custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) utilising cemented femoral stems as spacers was described providing better bone support and longer survival compared to conventional articulating spacers. We retrospectively report our experience managing PJI by adaptation of this technique using long cemented femoral stems where bone loss precludes use of standard stems.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1st stage revision for infected primary and revision THA using a cemented long stem (> 205 mm) and standard all-polyethylene acetabulum between 2011 and 2018 were identified. After excluding other causes of revision (fractures or aseptic loosening), Twenty-one patients remained out of total 721 revisions. Medical records were assessed for demographics, initial microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and subsequent operations. 2nd stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients underwent 1st stage revision with a cemented long femoral stem. Mean follow up was 3.9 years (range 1.7-7.2). Infection was eradicated in 15 (71.4%) patients. Two patients (9.5%) required repeat 1st stage and subsequently cleared their infection. Three patients (14.3%) had chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. One patient (4.8%) was lost to follow up before 2 years. Complications occurred in seven patients (33%) during or after 1st stage revision. Where infection was cleared, 2nd stage revision was undertaken in 12 patients (76.5%) at average of 9 months post 1st stage. Five (23.8%) CUMARS constructs remained in-situ at an average of 3.8 years post-op (range 2.6-5.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique can be used in the most taxing of reconstructive scenarios allowing mobility, local antibiotic delivery, maintenance of leg length and preserves bone and soft tissue, factors not afforded by alternative spacer options.

High rate of infection eradication following cementless one-stage revision hip arthroplasty with an antibacterial hydrogel coating

PURPOSE

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of one-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in terms of eradication of the infection, improvement of pain and joint function. We hypothesized that this treatment strategy could lead to satisfying results in selected patients after preoperative microorganism isolation.

METHODS

Ten patients underwent cementless one-stage revision hip arthroplasty with antibacterial hydrogel coating for the treatment of an infected THA. Inclusion criteria were: the presence of a known organism with known sensitivity, patients non-immunocompromised with healthy soft tissues with minimal or moderate bone loss. Mean age at surgery was 69.4 years. Assessment included objective examination, Harris hip score, visual analog scale pain score, standard X-rays.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 3.1 years (range, 2-5 years), none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to pre-operative values (p < 0.05). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the implant.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage revision THA with antibacterial hydrogel coated implants represents a safe and effective procedure providing infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes in selected patients.

Low-dose vancomycin-loaded cement spacer for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the success rate in terms of eradication of infection and long-term outcomes of two- stage revision arthroplasty with spacers loaded with low-dose vancomycin alone for the treatment of an infected hip arthroplasty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The records of 42 two-stage exchange arthroplasty patients (16 males, 26 females; mean age 61 years; range, 30 to 80 years) treated between January 1999 and January 2009 were included in this retrospective study. In the first stage, following removal of the prosthesis and debridement, a spacer consisting of 1 g of vancomycin per 40 g of cement was placed in the infected joint space. Patients received six weeks of intravenous antibiotics according to intraoperative cultures. After cessation of systemic antibiotic treatment, with normal C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels, second stage surgery with cementless components was performed.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was seven (range, 3 to 13) years. Two patients (4.7%) developed re-infection after two-stage reimplantation and one patient underwent a resection arthroplasty after repeated debridements. Five years of survival was 92.9% with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

CONCLUSION

For chronic infected total hip revisions, two-stage revision arthroplasty with low-dose vancomycin impregnated cement spacers have comparable re-infection and success rates. Low-dose vancomycin promotes effective infection control and reduces antibiotic toxicity.

Contemporary 2-Stage Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip Infection with Evidence-Based Standardized Protocols Yields Excellent Results: Caveats and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

This study quantified the effectiveness of contemporary and evidence-based standardized 2-stage treatment for periprosthetic hip infection. Findings illustrate potential limitations of criticisms of 2-stage protocols and potential consequences of adopting single-stage protocols before definitive data are available.

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive hips treated with 2-stage resection and reimplantation were retrospectively reviewed. Standardized protocols were adhered to including implant resection, meticulous surgical debridement, antibiotic spacer, 6-week intravenous antibiotics, a 2-week drug holiday, and laboratory assessment of infection eradication before reimplantation. After reimplantation, patients were placed on prophylactic intravenous antibiotics until discharge and discharged on oral antibiotics for a minimum of 7 days until intraoperative cultures were final. Successful treatment was defined per Delphi-based International Multidisciplinary Consensus.

RESULTS

The overall treatment success rate was 95.7% (44 of 46 cases) with mean infection-free survivorship of 67.2 (range, 23.8-106.4) months. Success rates were 100% for early and acute hematogenous infections regardless of host type and 100% for chronic infections in uncompromised hosts. 95% (19/20) of chronic infections in compromised hosts and 83.3% (5/6) of chronic infections in significantly compromised hosts were successfully treated. About 4% of primary hips and 20% of revision hips required repeat debridement and spacer exchange after initial resection. No patients died because of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Details from this consecutive series of patients undergoing 2-stage treatment for hip infection suggest that some criticisms of 2-stage treatment as well as some arguments in support of single-stage treatment may be overstated. Promotion and uncritical adoption of single-stage treatment protocols are discouraged until further and more definitive data exist.

[Periprosthetic joint infections : Latest developments, strategies and treatment algorithms]

BACKGROUND

Due to their multidimensional consequences, periprosthetic joint infections are a serious complication in arthroplasty. There are disagreements in the literature regarding their classification. At the same time, a consequence for the practical procedure cannot always be derived.

THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES

In addition to debridement with antibiotics and implant retention, there are options for a one or two-stage change in the therapeutic procedure. Although the preservation of implants is only possible in the case of acute infections with a short duration of symptoms, prosthesis changes are indicated with a longer symptom duration. For both procedures, there are interinstitutional deviating indication criteria, weighing pros and cons. Both have specific problems, such as, in particular, the duration of the antibiotics course, the question of anchoring the prosthesis and, in the case of a two-stage procedure, the shape of the spacer.

Meta-analysis in periprosthetic joint infection: a global bibliometric analysis

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of joint replacement surgery. Further comorbidities include bedsore, deep vein thrombosis, reinfection, or even death. An increasing number of researchers are focusing on this challenging complication. The aim of the present study was to estimate global PJI research based on bibliometrics from meta-analysis studies.

Methods

A database search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Relevant studies were assessed using the bibliometric analysis.

Results

A total of 117 articles were included. The most relevant literature on PJI was found on Scopus. China made the highest contributions to global research, followed by the USA and the UK. The institution with the most contributions was the University of Bristol. The journal with the highest number of publications was The Journal of Arthroplasty, whereas the Journal of Clinical Medicine had the shortest acceptance time. Furthermore, the top three frequently used databases were Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane. The most frequent number of authors in meta-analysis studies was four. Most studies focused on the periprosthetic hip and knee. The alpha-defensin diagnostic test, preventive measures on antibiotics use, and risk factors of intra-articular steroid injections were the most popular topic in recent years.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the present study, we found that there was no single database that covered all relevant articles; the optimal method for bibliometric analysis is a combination of databases. The most popular research topics on PJI focused on alpha-defensin, antibiotic use, risk factors of intra-articular steroid injections, and the location of prosthetic hip and knee infection.

Six-week antibiotic therapy after one-stage replacement arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection

OBJECTIVES

One-stage replacement arthroplasty for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) results in similar cure rate than two-stage (around 85-92%), but antibiotic therapy duration is not well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a short six-week antibiotic course in periprosthetic joint infections after onstage exchange.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective, observational study conducted at Orthopaedic Department of Cochin Hospital, Paris, between 1st January 2010 and 31 December 2015. Patients with a microbiologically proven PJI, treated with one-stage replacement and 6 weeks (+/1week) of antimicrobial therapy were included. Pearson's-χ² and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with periprosthetic joint infections (42 hip, 8 knee PJI) treated with one-stage replacement arthroplasty were included. Median age was 69.3 years (IQR 24.5-97.4). Infections occurred after a mean of 36 months (IQR 1-216). Bone biopsy cultures were positive for Staphylococcus spp. in 29 patients (58%), Cutibacterium acnes in 19 (38%), Gram-negative bacilli in 6 (12%). Polymicrobial infections occurred in 12 (24%). Intravenous antibiotics were administered for a median of 11 days (IQR 4-45) and 46 patients (92%) were switched to an oral therapy. Medium follow-up was of 32 months (IQR 12-101). Overall remission rate was 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

A six-week course of antibiotics in knee and hip PJIs treated with one-stage RA has a satisfactory remission rate in this open study.

Single vs 2-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, accounting for a projected 10,000 revision surgeries per year by 2030. Chronic PJI is complicated by the presence of bacterial biofilm, requiring removal of components, thorough debridement, and administration of antibiotics for effective eradication. Chronic PJI is currently managed with single-stage or 2-stage revision surgery. To date, there are no randomized, prospective studies available evaluating eradication rates and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques. In this review, both treatment options are described with the most current literature to guide effective surgical decision-making that is cost-effective while decreasing patient morbidity.

One-Stage Periprosthetic Joint Infection Reimbursement-Is It Worth The Effort?

BACKGROUND

One-stage protocols for the management of periprosthetic infection take an extended period of time requiring two separate preps and sets of instruments to ensure optimal sterility. While intraoperative service time is one part of the reimbursement algorithm, reimbursement has lagged behind for single-stage treatment with respect to the time and resources necessary to perform these complex treatment regimens. If one-stage results are shown to be acceptable, but not reimbursed appropriately, surgeons will be discouraged from managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in a one-stage fashion.

METHODS

The reimbursement and operative time for 50 PJI procedures were compared with 250 primary total hips and 250 primary total knees by the same 4 surgeons.

RESULTS

The average reimbursement for a one-stage knee procedure was $2,597.08, with an average intraoperative service time of 259 minutes ($601.60/h). The average reimbursement for a primary total knee was $2,435.00, with an average intraoperative service time of 100 minutes ($1,461/h). The average reimbursement for a one-stage hip procedure was $2,826.17, with an average intraoperative service time of 311 minutes ($545.24/h). The average reimbursement for a primary total hip was $2,754.71 with an average intraoperative service time of 104 minutes ($1,589.26/h).

CONCLUSION

One-stage procedures for PJI are reimbursed at approximately 1/3 the hourly rate of a primary procedure, which may discourage surgeons from selecting this treatment alternative even if recent studies confirm efficacy. Payers should be encouraged to reimburse physicians commensurate with the intraoperative service time needed to perform a one-stage procedure as adoption will decrease morbidity and save the healthcare system financially.

Ten-Year Results Following One-Stage Septic Hip Exchange in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Although 2-stage revision is still considered the gold standard for surgical management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), 1-stage revision has been reported to be as effective. Long-term reports for 1-stage revision in hip PJIs are lacking.

METHODS

We reviewed our 10-11 years of results of 85 patients who underwent 1-stage exchange of the hip with an antibiotic-loaded bone cemented prosthesis due to PJI to determine the following: (1) What is the infection-free survival? (2) What is the overall survival? and (3) What are the long-term clinical outcomes? All 1-stage revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for infection between January 2006 and December 2007, with a minimum 10-year follow-up (range 10-11), were included in this retrospective cohort. Patients from another country or patients who were unable to participate were excluded. Eighty-five patients with a hip PJI were available at the last follow-up. Thirty-seven patients died during the 10-year study. Harris Hip Scores were recorded before the surgery and at last follow-up. Failures are reported as infection-related or aseptic.

RESULTS

The 10-year infection-free survival was 94% and the surgery-free survival was 75.9%. The Harris Hip Scores improved from 43 (range 3-91) to 75 (range 10-91) (P < .001). The main indication for re-revision after 1-stage exchange was instability (10/20 patients).

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange of the hip for PJI is a reliable treatment option with high rate of infection control and long-lasting favorable outcomes.

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

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

Single-stage treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty with cementless reconstruction: results in 126 patients with broad inclusion criteria

AIMS

Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (sd 12.7; 20 to 79).

RESULTS

Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment.

CONCLUSION

Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396-402.

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.

Two-stage cementless hip revision for peri-prosthetic infection with an antibacterial hydrogel coating: results of a comparative series

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a two-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, may provide better infection cure rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic hip infection.

METHODS

In this case-control study, 27 patients, treated with a two-stage procedure, using cementless implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel (DAC®, "Defensive Antibacterial Coating"), were compared with 27 matched controls, treated with a two-stage cementless revision procedure, without the coating.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 2.7 (minimum 2.1-maximum 3.5) years, no evidence of infection, implant loosening, or adverse events were observed in the DAC-treated group, compared to four cases of infection recurrence in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in a relatively limited series of patients our data show that cementless two-stage hip revision, performed with an antibacterial hydrogel coating, may provide better infection control than two-stage without the coating, with reduced hospitalization time, these findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.

The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Preliminary Results After Changing From Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty Protocol Using Cementless Arthroplasty for Chronic Infected Hip Replacements

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study is to evaluate our preliminary results after changing from a 2-stage revision arthroplasty protocol to a 1-stage revision arthroplasty protocol using cementless arthroplasty for all patients with chronic infected hip replacements.

METHODS

Prospective study of all hip arthroplasties that were diagnosed with chronic infection and were treated using the 1-stage revision without taking into account the traditional criteria used to determine the use of a 1-stage revision was conducted. There were 2 main variables evaluated: infection control and costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated using average cost in USD, excluding social expenses, as described by Klouche (2010) for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included in the study and the infection was controlled in 18 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital for these 19 patients was 391.609 USD.

CONCLUSION

This clinical success has led to an important change in our hospital in treating chronic infected hip replacements and an important cost reduction from an economic point of view.

One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty: A Surgical Technique Update

BACKGROUND

Standard surgical treatment for a periprosthetic knee infection has been based on a staged surgical technique, in order to assure infection eradication prior to implantation of a new prosthesis.

METHODS

In this article, we discuss our surgical technique in undertaking a single-stage exchange of a chronic knee periprosthetic infection.

RESULTS

This technique, which is based on the fundamental principles of controlling infection, preventing recurrence, and restoring function, has been shown to deliver high success rates.

CONCLUSION

As demonstrated, when undertaken under appropriate circumstances, a single-stage exchange combined with local and systemic antibiotic delivery can result in infection eradication comparable to a 2-staged exchange.

Single-Stage Revision for Chronic Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Average of 5 Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infections caused by fungal pathogens are a rare entity, and there exist no definite guidelines according to which these infections can be successfully managed. In these situations, we wondered whether patients could be treated successfully for their fungal infections with single-stage revision.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis between January 2004 and October 2014 included 11 patients (4 hips and 7 knees) with chronic fungal periprosthetic joint infection who underwent single-stage revision, including aggressive soft-tissue debridement, thorough removal of infected components and cement, pouring powdered vancomycin into the medullary cavity and direct intra-articular injection of fungus-sensitive antibiotics, and a reasonable combination of antifungal agents and antibacterial medications. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. The average follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-10 years).

RESULTS

There were 3 failures during the study period; 1 patient died during the perioperative period because of acute heart failure on the eighth postoperative day. Of the 11 patients, 7 patients had satisfactory outcomes and required no additional surgical or medical treatment for recurrence of infection. The mean postoperative Harris hip score and Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 77 points (67-88 points; P < .05) and 78 points (73-84 points; P < .05), respectively, at the most recent assessment.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of chronic fungal periprosthetic joint infection with single-stage revision can be fairly effective for achieving acceptable functional outcomes, which indicated that this may be a feasible alternative strategy in selected patients.

Predicting lower limb periprosthetic joint infections: A review of risk factors and their classification

AIM

To undertook a systematic review to determine factors that increase a patient's risk of developing lower limb periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

METHODS

This systematic review included full-text studies that reviewed risk factors of developing either a hip or knee PJI following a primary arthroplasty published from January 1998 to November 2016. A variety of keywords were used to identify studies through international databases referencing hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, infection, and risk factors. Studies were only included if they included greater than 20 patients in their study cohort, and there was clear documentation of the statistical parameter used; specifically P-value, hazard ratio, relative risk, or/and odds ratio (OR). Furthermore a quality assessment criteria for the individual studies was undertaken to evaluate the presence of record and reporting bias.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven original studies reviewing risk factors relating to primary total hip and knee arthroplasty infections were included. Four studies (14.8%) reviewed PJI of the hip, 3 (11.21%) of the knee, and 20 (74.1%) reviewed both joints. Nineteen studies (70.4%) were retrospective and 8 (29.6%) prospective. Record bias was identified in the majority of studies (66.7%). The definition of PJI varied amongst the studies but there was a general consensus to define infection by previously validated methods. The most significant risks were the use of preoperative high dose steroids (OR = 21.0, 95%CI: 3.5-127.2, P < 0.001), a BMI above 50 (OR = 18.3, P < 0.001), tobacco use (OR = 12.76, 95%CI: 2.47-66.16, P = 0.017), body mass index below 20 (OR = 6.00, 95%CI: 1.2-30.9, P = 0.033), diabetes (OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 1.77-16.97, P = 0.003), and coronary artery disease (OR = 5.10, 95%CI: 1.3-19.8, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

We have highlighted the need for the provider to optimise modifiable risk factors, and develop strategies to limit the impact of non-modifiable factors.