Application of structural allogenous bone graft in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for knee periprosthetic joint infection: a case control study

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after knee arthroplasty: a call for a randomised trial

Purpose

Knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for severe knee degeneration; however, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of its serious complications. Single- and two-stage revision are common treatments, but few studies have compared single- and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare the reinfection and reoperation rates of single- and two-stage revision through meta-analysis.

Methods

The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for trials comparing single- and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty from the respective inception dates to April 2023. Two researchers individually screened the studies, performed the literature quality evaluation and data extraction and used Stata 17 software for data analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis showed that the reinfection rate was significantly lower in the single-stage revision group than in the two-stage revision group. While the reoperation rates demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two groups. We presented descriptive results because the discrepancies in the knee function scores and data reported in the studies meant that these data could not be combined in the meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Based on the available research, single-stage revision is a reliable option for PJI after knee arthroplasty. However, when developing the best treatment strategy, it is still necessary to consider the individual circumstances and needs of the patient, as well as the risks of postoperative rehabilitation and complications.

High failure rate of 2-stage revision for the infected total elbow arthroplasty: a single institution's experience

BACKGROUND

Despite 2-stage revision being a common treatment for elbow prosthetic joint infection (PJI), failure rates are high. The purpose of this study was to report on a single institution's experience with 2-stage revisions for elbow PJI and determine risk factors for failed eradication of infection. The secondary purpose was to determine risk factors for needing allograft bone at the second stage of revision in the setting of compromised bone stock.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all 2-stage revision total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed for infection at a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Data collected included demographics and treatment course prior to, during, and after 2-stage revision. Radiographs obtained after explantation and operative reports were reviewed to evaluate for partial component retention and incomplete cement removal. The primary outcome was failed eradication of infection, defined as the need for repeat surgery to treat infection after the second-stage revision. The secondary outcome was the use of allograft for compromised bone stock during the second-stage revision. Risk factors for both outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included. Seven patients (37%) had either the humeral or ulnar component retained during the first stage, and 10 (53%) had incomplete removal of cement in either the humerus or ulna. Nine patients (47%) had allograft strut used during reimplantation and reconstruction. Nine patients (47%) failed to eradicate the infection after 2-stage revision. Demographic data were similar between the repeat-infection and nonrepeat-infection groups. Six patients (60%) with retained cement failed compared with 3 patients (33%) with full cement removal (P = .370). Two patients (29%) with a retained component failed compared to 7 patients (58%) with full component removal (P = .350). Allograft was used less frequently when a well-fixed component or cement was retained, with no patients with a retained component needing allograft compared to 9 with complete component removal (P = .003). Three patients (30%) with retained cement needed allograft, compared with 6 patients (67%) who had complete cement removal (P = .179).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the patients failed to eradicate infection after 2-stage revision. The data did not demonstrate a clear association between retained cement or implants and risk of recurrent infection. Allograft was used less frequently when a component and cement were retained, possibly serving as a proxy for decreased bone loss during the first stage of revision. Therefore, the unclear benefit of removing well-fixed components and cement need to be carefully considered as it likely leads to compromised bone stock that complicates the second stage of revision.