Risk Factors for Failure After 1-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

The Application of artificial intelligence in periprosthetic joint infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, often necessitating additional surgeries and antimicrobial therapy, and potentially leading to disability. This significantly increases the burden on both patients and the healthcare system. Given the considerable suffering caused by PJI, its prevention and treatment have long been focal points of concern. However, challenges remain in accurately assessing individual risk, preventing the infection, improving diagnostic methods, and enhancing treatment outcomes. The development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have introduced new, more efficient possibilities for the management of many diseases. In this article, we review the applications of AI in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of PJI, and explore how AI methodologies might achieve individualized risk prediction, improve diagnostic algorithms through biomarkers and pathology, and enhance the efficacy of antimicrobial and surgical treatments. We hope that through multimodal AI applications, intelligent management of PJI can be realized in the future.

The Role of Intraoperative Positive Tissue Sample Location in Predicting Septic Failure After One-Stage Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The practice of collecting various intraoperative tissue samples from diverse periarticular sites is essential for accurately identifying the responsible microorganism, making it the gold standard in the procedure for managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We hypothesized that the location of positive intraoperative cultures differs significantly between patients who underwent septic revision following a one-stage exchange for hip PJI and those who did not.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study at our tertiary arthroplasty center, analyzing data from January 2009 to September 2017. Our search identified 56 patients who experienced septic failure following one-stage hip revision arthroplasty for PJI. These patients were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and surgery date with a control group who had successful one-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) without septic failure. Positive intraoperative tissue samples were categorized into three locations: soft tissue, bone-prosthesis interface (superficial bone), and deep bone (intramedullary).

RESULTS

The septic failure cohort demonstrated a statistically significant increase in both the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Body Mass Index compared to the control group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, respectively). Furthermore, a significantly greater number of positive superficial and deep bone culture samples were identified within the septic failure group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). In addition, regression analysis indicated that a positive deep bone culture is associated with nearly a three-fold increase in the odds of reinfection, with an odds ratio of 2.8 (95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 7.3, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

A positive deep bone culture sample is significantly correlated with septic failure following a one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip. Patients exhibiting positive deep bone cultures may derive benefit from extended postoperative antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infection, as well as rigorous monitoring and evaluation of inflammatory markers during the follow-up phases subsequent to one-stage exchange arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

One-stage exchange strategy with extensive debridement for chronic periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is associated with a low relapse rate in non-selected patients: a prospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

This prospective clinical cohort was undertaken to determine the long-term risks of reinfection and all-cause aseptic failure after 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasties (TKA) in a large series of consecutive patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following TKA.

HYPOTHESIS

One-stage exchange for chronic PJI is an effective strategy, even in a non-selected population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Non-selected patients (152 with 154 PJI) undergoing 1-stage-exchange TKA for PJI (January 2003-August 2015) were prospectively included and monitored for ≥2 years. PJI following TKA satisfying Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria were documented by microbiological culture results of preoperative joint aspirates and/or intraoperative samples. The cumulative incidences of total reinfections (i.e., relapses or new infections) and aseptic revisions were assessed. The mean follow-up (FU) duration was 7.5 years post-reimplantation.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, 35 knees had developed reinfections: 7 relapses and 28 new infections, with respective 14-year cumulative incidences of 4.8% and 20.6%. The 2-, 5- and 14-year cumulative total reinfection incidences were 12.3%, 21.3% and 24.3%, respectively. Respective 2-, 5-, 10- and 14-year aseptic component-revision incidences were 0.7%, 3.2%, 5.4% and 13.4%. Multivariate analysis retained male sex (HR 3.27, p < 0.01) and preoperative atrial fibrillation (HR 3.03; p = 0.01) as being significantly associated with greater risk of reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage-exchange TKA with aggressive debridement for chronic PJI is apparently a valid strategy, even for non-selected patients. It was associated with a low relapse rate, prevented morbidity and avoided economic social costs of 2-stage exchange. New infections with a different microorganism were observed more frequently and occurred even after years of FU.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; Therapeutic.

Mid-term Results of 1-stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection With a Sinus Tract

Background

Patients presenting with a sinus tract over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are challenging cases of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). A 2-stage revision TKA has long been considered the gold standard for the management of PJI. At our institution, approximately 85% of patients with PJI, including patients with a sinus tract, undergo 1-stage revision TKA.

Purpose

We sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and reoperation and predictors of failure of 1-stage revision TKA in patients with a concomitant sinus tract.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients with PJI and a sinus tract overlying TKA who underwent 1-stage revision TKA following a well-defined surgical protocol at our institution between January 2001 and December 2018. Of 170 patients included, 69 patients (40.6%) had a sinus tract overlying TKA; 101 patients without a sinus were the propensity-matched control group.

Result

The success rate of controlling reinfection with 1-stage revision TKA with a concomitant sinus was 78.3% with a mean follow-up of 4.8 years. The most common intraoperatively isolated organisms in patients with a sinus tract were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in 28 patients (40.6%), Staphylococcus aureus in 12 patients (17.2%), and polymicrobial infection in 14 patients (20.3%). A sinus tract in line with the surgical wound was associated with a higher risk of reoperation than a sinus tract away from the wound.

Conclusion

Our retrospective study suggests that 1-stage revision TKA may be a viable treatment option for patients presenting with a sinus tract. A sinus in line with the former incision was associated with a higher rate of revision. Surgeons should take into consideration this risk for revision before performing a 1-stage exchange surgery.

Risk Factors and Microbiological Profile of Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections With Sinus Tract

BACKGROUND

A sinus tract is an abnormal channel that communicates between the skin and the joint, and meets one of the major criteria that is diagnostic of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to compare the risk factors and the microorganism profile of PJI of the knee with an overlying sinus tract to PJI without a sinus tract.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of PJI following total knee arthroplasty with and without the presence of an overlying sinus tract from 1996 to 2020. There were 2,685 unique cases of chronic PJI following total knee arthroplasty, of which 405 cases (15.1%) had a sinus tract and 2,280 cases (84.9%) did not. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors and the microorganism profiles of the 2 groups. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounders in the multivariate analysis, the presence of a sinus tract was associated with a history of severe liver disease (P = .039; odds ratio: 1.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 3.84). Polymicrobial infections comprised 41.7% of PJI in the sinus tract group, compared to 29.1% in patients who did not have a sinus tract (P < .001). Of the monomicrobial PJI, Staphylococcus aureus (P < .001), Enterococcus faecalis (P < .001), Enterobacter cloacae (P = .002), Corynebacterium species (P = .037), Proteus mirabilis (P = .028), coagulase-negative Staphylococci (P = .019), and Candida albicans (P = .029) were more common in patients who had a sinus tract.

CONCLUSIONS

The microbiology profile is significantly different in patients who have PJI of the knee with a sinus tract. These findings can guide the surgeon with surgical planning and selecting the appropriate antibiotic-loaded bone cement and empiric antibiotic treatment.

Differences in microorganism profile in periprosthetic joint infections of the hip in patients affected by chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Patients affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This patient population has a higher risk of recurrent infections and hospitalization. The aim of this study is to compare the profile of microorganisms in patients with CKD and PJI of the hip versus controls and to individuate potentially unusual and drug-resistant microorganisms among the causative bacteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 4261 patients affected by PJI of the hip were retrospectively studied. Patients affected by CKD in this population were identified and compared with a control group of patients with PJI but without CKD. Data on patient characteristics and comorbidities were collected. The microorganisms responsible for PJI were identified and compared between both groups.

RESULTS

The CKD group included 409 patients, 54.3% male, mean age of 73.8 ± 8.9 years, a higher body mass index (BMI) than the general population (29.88 ± 5.90 kg/m2), and higher age-adjusted CCI of 6.15 ± 2.35. Overall, 70 different isolates of microorganisms were identified, including 52 Gram-positive spp., 28 Gram-negative spp., 3 fungi, and 1 mycobacterium. Polymicrobial infections were more common in CKD group than controls (47.9% versus 30.9%; p < 0.0001). Staphylococcus spp. were the most common bacteria in both groups, followed by Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae and Streptococcus spp. CKD group showed a higher risk of developing infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus (p = 0.003), Gram-negative bacteria, and Candida (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Renal failure exposes patients who undergo THA to PJI caused by microorganisms that are potentially more drug resistant, leading to a higher risk of treatment failure. Knowing in advance the different microorganism profiles could help to plan a different surgical strategy.

Risk factors associated with re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies.

Results

The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m2, and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision.

Conclusion

Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments.

Advancements in treatment strategies for periprosthetic joint infections: A comprehensive review

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a critical challenge in orthopedic care, contributing to significant patient morbidity and healthcare costs. This burden is expected to increase secondary to growing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Despite the profound significance of PJI, there is currently no universally accepted "gold standard" diagnostic criteria using serum biomarker thresholds; latest criteria fail to differentiate acute infections from chronic or consider time since initial surgery. Furthermore, contemporary PJI treatment, which conventionally requires 2-stage revision surgery in conjunction with rigorous antibiotic treatment, can be particularly taxing on patients. Fortunately, recent years have seen marked evolution in both PJI diagnosis and treatment methods. Contemporary research supports time-dependent serum biomarker thresholds with greater sensitivity and specificity than previously reported, as well as alternative surgical options which may be more suitable for certain patients. The following narrative review aims to describe the significance and pathogenesis of PJI before characterizing current challenges, novel innovations, and the future landscape of PJI diagnosis and management. Here, we spotlight the emerging utility of novel biomarkers and metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosis, advancements in patient-centered surgical outcome prediction tools for PJI risk assessment and prevention, and evolving surgical techniques including 1-stage and a "hybrid" 1.5-stage revision surgeries. Additionally, we explore cutting-edge therapeutic modalities including peptide and bacteriophage-based treatments, intraoperative anti-biofilm gel, the VT-X7 antibiotic pump, and promising immune-based interventions. Ultimately, these advancements hold the potential to revolutionize PJI management, offering hope for improved outcomes and reduced burdens on healthcare systems.

Intramedullary Positive Tissue Culture Increases the Risk of Reinfection Following One-Stage Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative acquisition of representative tissue samples is essential during revision arthroplasty of the infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While the number of intraoperative tissue samples needed to identify the organism is well described in the literature, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding the location of positive intraoperative samples and their correlation to postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

There were forty-two patients who had septic failure following one-stage revision TKA for periprosthetic joint infection who were identified between January 2009 and December 2017. They were matched to a control group of patients who had successful one-stage revision TKA without septic failure. The location of positive intraoperative tissue samples was categorized as: 1) soft tissue; 2) interface between bone and prosthesis; and 3) intramedullary (IM). Chi-square, Student's t-, and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U-tests were used as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of septic failure.

RESULTS

Weight > 100 kilograms (P = .033), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < .001), and positive IM cultures (P < .001) were associated with a higher risk of reinfection after one-stage revision TKA. A positive IM sample carried a nearly five-fold increase in odds of reinfection (odds ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.85 to 12.78, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A positive IM culture sample is significantly associated with septic failure after one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. Patients who had positive IM cultures may benefit from longer postoperative antibiotic therapy for the treatment of one-stage exchange arthroplasty to minimize the risk of reinfection.

Effect of Multiantibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Arthroplasties-A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Two-stage septic revision is the prevailing method for addressing late periprosthetic infections. Using at least dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement leads to synergistic effects with a more efficient elution of individual antibiotics. Recent data on the success rates of multiantibiotic cement spacers in two-stage revisions are rare.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective follow-up single-center study involving 250 patients with late periprosthetic hip infections and 95 patients with prosthetic knee infections who underwent septic two-stage prosthesis revision surgery between 2017 and 2021. In accordance with the antibiotic susceptibility profile of the microorganisms, a specific mixture of antibiotics within the cement spacer was used, complemented by systemic antibiotic treatment. All patients underwent preoperative assessments and subsequent evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post operation and at the most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

During the observation period, the survival rate after two-step septic revision was 90.7%. Although survival rates tended to be slightly lower for difficult-to-treat (DTT) microorganism, there was no difference between the pathogen groups (easy-to-treat (ETT) pathogens, methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens). Furthermore, there were no differences between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. No difference in the survival rate was observed between patients with dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement without an additional admixture (Copal® G+C and Copal® G+V) and patients with an additional admixture of antibiotics to proprietary cement.

CONCLUSION

Employing multiple antibiotics within spacer cement, tailored to pathogen susceptibility, appears to provide reproducibly favorable success rates, even in instances of infections with DTT pathogens and polymicrobial infections.

The influence of gut microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections: State-of-the art

Early periprosthetic joint infection constitutes one of the most frightening complications of joint replacement. Recently, some evidence has highlighted the potential link between dysregulation of the gut microbiota and degenerative diseases of joints. It has been hypothesized that microbiome dysbiosis may increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection by facilitating bacterial translocation from these sites to the bloodstream or by impairing local or systemic immune responses. Although the processes tying the gut microbiome to infection susceptibility are still unknown, new research suggests that the presurgical gut microbiota-a previously unconsidered component-may influence the patient's ability to resist infection. Exploring the potential impact of the microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections may therefore bring new insights into the pathogenesis and therapy of these disorders. For a successful therapy, a proper surgical procedure in conjunction with an antibacterial concept is essential. As per the surgical approach, different treatment strategies include surgical irrigation, debridement, antibiotic therapy, and implant retention with or without polyethylene exchange. Other alternatives could be one-stage or two-stage revisions surgery. Interventions that either directly target gut microbes as well as interventions that modify the composition and/or function of the commensal microbes represent an innovative and potentially successful field to be explored. In recent times, innovative therapeutic methods have arisen in the realm of microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related ailments. These progressive approaches offer fresh perspectives on tackling intricate microbial imbalances in the gastrointestinal tract. These emerging therapies signify a shift towards more precise and individualized approaches to microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related disorders. Once a more advanced knowledge of the pathways linking the gut microbiota to musculoskeletal tissues is gained, relevant microbiome-based therapies can be developed. If dysbiosis is proven to be a significant contributor, developing treatments for dysbiosis may represent a new frontier in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections.

Surgical Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Hip and Knee Megaprostheses

Periprosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after the megaprosthetic reconstruction of oncologic and non-oncologic bone defects of including the knee or hip joint. Due to the relative rarity of these procedures, however, optimal management is debatable. Considering the expanding use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty and the high revision burden in orthopedic oncology, the risk of PJI is likely to increase over the coming years. In this non-systematic review article, we present and discuss current management options and the associated results focusing on studies from the last 15 years and studies from dedicated centers or study groups. The indication, surgical details and results in controlling infection are presented for debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) procedure with an exchange of the modular components, single-stage implant exchange, two-stage exchanges and ablative procedures.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.

Frequent microbiological profile changes are seen in subsequent-revision hip and knee arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection

A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat-revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. Results: A total of 106 patients were identified. Of these patients, 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. The mean age at first revision was 67 years (SD 10). The Charlson comorbidity index was ≤  2 for 31 patients, 3-4 for 57 patients, and ≥  5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent at least two revisions, 73 patients received three, 47 patients received four, 31 patients received five, and 21 patients received at least six. After six revisions, 90 % of patients had different organisms cultured compared with the initial revision, and 53 % of organisms were multidrug resistant. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (36 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (19 %). Fungus was cultured from 3 % of revisions, and 21 % of infections were polymicrobial. Conclusion: Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organism, with 90 % of patients having a different organism cultured by their sixth revision. It is therefore important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, taking into account known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support the routine use of empirical antifungals.

Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee represents a severe complication after 1.5% to 2% of primary total knee replacement. Although two-stage revision was considered the gold-standard treatment for PJI of the knee, in the last decades, more studies reported the outcomes of one-stage revisions. This systematic review aims to assess reinfection rate, infection-free survival after reoperation for recurrent infection, and the microorganisms involved in both primary and recurrent infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting the outcome of one-stage revision for PJI of the knee up to September 2022, according to PRISMA criteria and AMSTAR2 guidelines, was performed. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were recorded.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42022362767.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 881 one-stage revisions for PJI of the knee were analyzed. A reinfection rate of 12.2% after an average follow-up of 57.6 months was reported. The most frequent causative microorganism were gram-positive bacteria (71.1%), gram-negative bacteria (7.1%), and polymicrobial infections (8%). The average postoperative knee society score was 81.5, and the average postoperative knee function score was 74.2. The infection-free survival after treatment for recurrent infection was 92.1%. The causative microorganisms at reinfections differed significantly from the primary infection (gram-positive 44.4%, gram-negative 11.1%).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent a one-stage revision for PJI of the knee showed a reinfection rate lower or comparable to other surgical treatments as two-stage or DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention). Reoperation for reinfection demonstrates a lower success compared to one-stage revision. Moreover, microbiology differs between primary infection and recurrent infection. Level of evidence Level IV.

Single, Recurrent, Synchronous, and Metachronous Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Patients With Multiple Hip and Knee Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

The rate for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) exceeds 1% for primary arthroplasties. Over 30% of patients who have a primary arthroplasty require an additional arthroplasty, and the impact of PJI on this population is understudied. Our objective was to assess the prevalence of recurrent, synchronous, and metachronous PJI in patients who had multiple arthroplasties and to identify risk factors for a subsequent PJI.

METHODS

We identified 337 patients who had multiple arthroplasties and at least 1 PJI that presented between 2003 and 2021. The mean follow-up after revision arthroplasty was 3 years (range, 0 to 17.2). Patients who had multiple infected prostheses were categorized as synchronous (ie, presenting at the same time as the initial infection) or metachronous (ie, presenting at a different time as the initial infection). The PJI diagnosis was made using the MusculoSkeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria.

RESULTS

There were 39 (12%) patients who experienced recurrent PJI in the same joint, while 31 (9%) patients developed PJI in another joint. Positive blood cultures were more likely in the second joint PJI (48%) compared to recurrent PJI (23%) or a single PJI (15%, P < .001). Synchronous PJI represented 42% of the second joint PJI cases (n = 13), while metachronous PJI represented 58% (n = 18). Tobacco users had 75% higher odds of metachronous PJI (odds ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.9, P = .041).

CONCLUSION

Over 20% of the patients with multiple arthroplasties and a single PJI will develop a subsequent PJI in another arthroplasty with 12% recurring in the initial arthroplasty and nearly 10% ocurring in another arthroplasty. Particular caution should be taken in patients who use tobacco, have bacteremia, or have Staphylococcus aureus isolation at time of their initial PJI. Optimizing the management of this high-risk patient population is necessary to reduce the additional burden of subsequent PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV.

Hypoalbuminemia increases the risk of failure following one-stage septic revision for periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

Malnutrition is a potentially modifiable risk factor of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of nutritional status as a risk factor for failure after one- stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for PJI.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center, case-control study. Patients with PJI according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria were evaluated. Minimum follow-up was 4 years. Total lymphocyte count (TLC), albumin values, hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, white blood cell (WBC) count and glucose levels were analyzed. An analysis was also made of the index of malnutrition. Malnutrition was defined as serum albumin < 3.5 g/dL and TLC < 1500/mm3. Septic failure was defined as the presence of local or systemic symptoms of infection and the need of further surgery as a result of persistent PJI.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between increased failure rates after a one-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for PJI and TLC, hemoglobin level, WBC count, glucose levels, or malnutrition. Albumin and C-reactive protein values were found to have a positive and significant relationship with failure (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression identified only hypoalbuminemia (serum albumin < 3.5 g/dL) (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26-25.18, p = 0.023) as a significant independent risk factor for failure. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the model yielded an area under the curve of 0.67.

CONCLUSION

TLC, hemoglobin; WBC count; glucose levels; and malnutrition, understood as the combination of albumin and TLC, were not found to be statically significant risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for PJI. However, albumin < 3.5 g/dL, alone was a statically significant risk factor for failure after single-stage revision for PJI. As hypoalbuminemia seems to influence the failure rate, it is advisable to measure albumin levels in preoperative workups.

A mapping review on preoperative prognostic factors and outcome measures of revision total knee arthroplasty

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis.

Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

Successful eradication rate following one-stage septic knee and hip exchange in selected pre-operative culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections

PURPOSE

The main requirement for performing the one-stage septic exchange is the pre-operative identification of the pathogen and its susceptibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success rate with special focus on reinfection in a cohort of patients who underwent one-stage septic knee or hip revision for pre-operative culture-negative PJI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 640 patients treated by one-stage revision for chronic knee or hip PJI between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Only cases with pre-operative culture-negative PJI, with culture-negative synovial aspirations and one negative open biopsy, were analyzed. We evaluated the septic and aseptic complication and the rate of complication-free survival defined as the time from the date of first operation and the date of complication events.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients fulfilled the inclusion and were enrolled. The mean age of the group was 73.2 ± 9.8 years, with a median ASA score of 3 (range 3-4). After mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.6 years, 86.4% (19 out of 22) of patients reported no complications. Two patients (9.1%) after one-stage hip required revision arthroplasty due to septic failure, while one patient (4.5%) with one-stage knee had revision for femoral component aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that the absence of pre-operative pathogen detection may not be contraindication to the one-stage revision in selected patients. The one-stage exchange might be considered in patients with pre-operative negative cultures in presence of ASA > 3 and multiple comorbidities that are not able to tolerate multiple surgeries.

Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7-8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9-9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0-19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7-19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias.

CONCLUSION

The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

Machine learning models accurately predict recurrent infection following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and validate machine-learning models for the prediction of recurrent infection in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

A total of 618 consecutive patients underwent revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. The patient cohort included 165 patients with confirmed recurrent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Potential risk factors including patient demographics and surgical characteristics served as input to three machine-learning models which were developed to predict recurrent periprosthetic joint. The machine-learning models were assessed by discrimination, calibration and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The factors most significantly associated with recurrent PJI in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for PJI included irrigation and debridement with/without modular component exchange (p < 0.001), > 4 prior open surgeries (p < 0.001), metastatic disease (p < 0.001), drug abuse (p < 0.001), HIV/AIDS (p < 0.01), presence of Enterococcus species (p < 0.01) and obesity (p < 0.01). The machine-learning models all achieved excellent performance across discrimination (AUC range 0.81-0.84).

CONCLUSION

This study developed three machine-learning models for the prediction of recurrent infections in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. The strongest predictors were previous irrigation and debridement with or without modular component exchange and prior open surgeries. The study findings show excellent model performance, highlighting the potential of these computational tools in quantifying increased risks of recurrent PJI to optimize patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

High Mortality After Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infection is Related to Preoperative Morbidity and the Disease Process but Not Treatment

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) mortality rate is approximately 20%. The etiology for high mortality remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether mortality was associated with preoperative morbidity (frailty), sequalae of treatment, or the PJI disease process itself.

METHODS

A multicenter observational study was completed comparing 184 patients treated with septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to a control group of 38 patients treated with aseptic revision TKA. Primary outcomes included time and the cause of death. Secondary outcomes included preoperative comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) measured preoperatively and at various postoperative timepoints.

RESULTS

The septic revision TKA cohort experienced earlier mortality compared to the aseptic cohort, with a higher mortality rate at 90 days, 1, 2, and 3 years after index revision surgery (P = .01). There was no significant difference for any single cause of death (P > .05 for each). The mean preoperative CCMI was higher (P = .005) in the septic revision TKA cohort. Both septic and aseptic cohorts experienced a significant increase in CCMI from the preoperative to 3 years postoperative (P < .0001 and P = .002) and time of death (P < .0001 both) timepoints. The septic revision TKA cohort had a higher CCMI 3 years postoperatively (P = .001) and at time of death (P = .046), but not one year postoperatively (P = .119).

CONCLUSION

Compared to mortality from aseptic revision surgery, septic revision TKA is associated with earlier mortality, but there is no single specific etiology. As quantified by changes in CCMI, PJI mortality was associated with both frailty and the PJI disease process, but not treatment.

Long Term Results of Two-Stage Revision for Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infection: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Long-term reinfection and mortality rates and clinical outcomes with sufficient subject numbers remain limited for patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic knee infections. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term reinfection, complication, and mortality following reimplantation for two-stage exchange following knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 178 patients who underwent two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI at three large tertiary referral institutions with an average of 6.63-year follow-up from reimplantation from 1990 to 2015. Rates of reinfection, mortality, and all-cause revision were calculated along with the cumulative incidence of reinfection with death as a competing factor. Risk factors for reinfection were determined using Cox multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall rate of infection eradication was 85.41%, with a mortality rate of 30.33%. Patients with minimum 5-year follow-up (n = 118, average 8.32 years) had an infection eradication rate of 88.98%, with a mortality rate of 33.05%.

CONCLUSION

This is a large series with long-term follow-up evaluating outcomes of two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty resulting in adequate infection eradication and high mortality. Results were maintained at longer follow-up. This technique should be considered in patients with chronic PJI; however, realistic expectations regarding long-term outcomes must be discussed with patients.

Periprosthetic Knee Infection - Part 2: Treatment

Several treatment modalities are proposed for periprosthetic infections, with variable success rates. However, efficacy is related to the appropriate selection of cases for each type of treatment. Debridement with implant retention is indicated in acute infections with fixed implant, and its success depends on the type of infection, comorbidities of the host, and virulence of the etiological agent. One- or two-stage revision is required in cases in which biofilm is forming, or of implant loosening. The choice between performing the review in one or two stages depends on factors such as etiological agent identification, pathogen virulence, local and systemic host factors. Rescue procedures such as arthrodesis, amputation, resection arthroplasty or even antibiotic suppression are reserved for cases in which the infection has not been eradicated.

High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed.

RESULTS

At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure.

CONCLUSION

Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386-393.

The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation = 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system.

RESULTS

At the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n = 11), compared with 28% (n = 14) in group 1, 29% (n = 7) in group 3, and 26% (n = 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P = .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P = .107). Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.

What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

PURPOSE

Re-operation after septic failure of a one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is a highly challenging procedure with concerns over residual bone stock, soft tissues, and stability. The associated changes in microbiology in cases of reinfection are still largely unknown.

METHODS

A comprehensive analysis was performed of all patients treated at our tertiary institution between 2001 and 2017 who developed reinfection after a one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. Prerequisites for inclusion were a certain diagnosis of PJI according to the ICM criteria and a minimum follow-up of three years. Data on comorbidities, previous surgical interventions, microbiological findings at the time of the initial one-stage exchange and at the time of reinfection, detection methods, and antibiotic resistance patterns were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Reinfection occurred after a mean time interval of 27.7 months (SD ± 33.9, range 1-165). Ten types of bacteria were found that were not present before the one-stage exchange. The causative pathogen remained identical in 22 patients (33%) and additional microorganisms were detected in ten patients (15%). Half of the reinfections were however due to (a) completely different microorganism(s). A significant increase in the number of PJIs on the basis of high-virulent (23 vs 30, p = 0.017) and difficult-to-treat bacteria (13 vs 24, p = 0.035) was found.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a novel insight into the microbiological changes following septic failure after one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. A higher prevalence of more difficult-to-treat bacteria might increase the complexity of subsequent procedures. Also, a longer follow-up of these patients than previously suggested seems in order.

What Is the Mid-term Survivorship of Infected Rotating-hinge Implants Treated with One-stage-exchange?

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing number of studies reporting on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), there is little information on one-stage exchange arthroplasty for the revision of infected rotating-hinge prostheses, which can be among the most difficult PJI presentations to treat.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

After one-stage direct exchange revision for an infected rotating-hinge TKA prosthesis, and using a multimodal approach for infection control, we asked: (1) What is the survivorship free from repeat revision for infection and survivorship free from reoperation for any cause? (2) What is the clinical outcome, based on the Oxford Knee Score, of these patients at the latest follow-up?

METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2017, we treated 101 patients with infected rotating-hinge knee prostheses at our hospital. All patients who underwent a one-stage exchange using another rotating-hinge implant were potentially eligible for this retrospective study. During that period, we generally used a one-stage approach when treating PJIs. Eighty-three percent (84 of 101) of patients were treated with one-stage exchange, and the remainder were treated with two-stage exchange. Of the 84 treated with one-stage exchange, eight patients died of unrelated causes and were therefore excluded, one patient declined to participate in the study, and another eight patients were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years or had incomplete datasets, leaving 80% (67 of 84) for analysis in this study. The included study population consisted of 60% males (40 of 67) with a mean age of 64 ± 8 years and a mean (range) BMI of 30 ± 6 kg/m2 (21 to 40). The mean number of prior surgeries was 4 ± 2 (1 to 9) on the affected knee. Fifteen percent (10 of 67) of knees had a preoperative joint communicating sinus tract, and 66% (44 of 67) had experienced a prior PJI on the affected knee. The antimicrobial regimen was chosen based on the advice of our infectious disease consultant and individually adapted for the organism cultured. The mean follow-up duration was 6 ± 2 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using the endpoints of survivorship free from repeat revision for infection and survivorship free from all-cause revision. The functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (on a 12- to 60-point scale, with lower scores representing less pain and greater function), obtained by interviewing patients for this study at their most recent follow-up visit. Preoperative scores were not obtained.

RESULTS

The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an overall survivorship free from reoperation for any cause of 75% (95% CI 64% to 87%) at the mean follow-up of 6 years postoperatively. Survivorship free from any repeat operative procedure for infection was 90% (95% CI 83% to 97%) at 6 years. The mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score was 37 ± 11 points.

CONCLUSION

With an overall revision rate of about 25% at 6 years and the limited functional results based on the poor Oxford Knee Scores, patients should be counseled to have modest expectations concerning postoperative pain and function level after one-stage exchange of an infected rotating-hinge arthroplasty. Nevertheless, patients may be informed about a reasonable chance of PJI eradication and might opt for this approach as a means to try to avoid high transfemoral amputation or joint arthrodesis, which in this population often is associated with the inability to ambulate at all. Regarding the relatively high number of patients with aseptic loosening, future studies might focus on implant design of revision knee systems as well. A longer course of oral antibiotics after such procedures may also be warranted to limit the chance of reinfection but requires further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Experiences during Switching from Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection

The objective of this study was to evaluate our preliminary results after changing our surgical strategy from 2-stage revision arthroplasty to 1-stage revision arthroplasty for patients with chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection. We conducted a prospective study of knee arthroplasty patients that had been diagnosed with chronic infection and treated using a 1-stage revision regardless of the traditional criteria applied for indication thereof. We evaluated two main variables: infection control and economic costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined by using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated as average costs in USD, as described by Srivastava (2019), for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions. Eighteen patients were included in the study, and infection was controlled in 17 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital from these 18 patients amounted to USD 291,152. This clinical success has led to major changes in how our hospital approaches the treatment of chronically infected knee replacements, in addition to substantial economic advantages for the hospital.

Successive new-pathogen prosthetic joint reinfections: Observational cohort study on 61 patients

OBJECTIVES

s (PJI) treatment failure may be due to relapsing infection (same microorganism) or new-pathogen reinfection (npPJI). The aim was to describe npPJI epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, their treatments and outcomes, and identify their risk factors.

METHODS

This observational, single-center, cohort study was conducted in a French Referral Center for Bone-and-Joint Infections between September 2004 and December 2015. Patients treated for at least two successive hip or knee PJIs in the same joint with a different pathogen were identified in the prospective database. We compared each patient's first PJI and subsequent npPJI(s) to analyze the type and microbiological characteristics of npPJIs. To search for npPJI risk factors, we compared those cases to a random selection of 122 "unique-episode" PJIs treated during the study period.

RESULTS

Among 990 PJIs, 79 (8%) npPJIs occurring in 61 patients were included. New-pathogen prosthetic joint infections (npPJIs) s developed more frequently in knee (14%) than hip prostheses (5%). Median interval from the first PJI to the npPJI was 26 months. New-pathogen prosthetic joint infections (npPJIs) s more frequently spread hematogenously (60% vs 33%) and were predominantly caused by Staphylococcus (36%) or Streptococcus (33%) species. Multivariate analysis identified two risk factors: chronic dermatitis (odds ratio: 6.23; P<0.05) and cardiovascular diseases (odds ratio: 2.71; P<0.01). A curative strategy was applied to 70%: DAIR (29%), one-stage (28%), two-stage exchange arthroplasty (7%) or other strategies (7%). The others received prolonged suppressive antibiotic therapy (29%).

CONCLUSIONS

New-pathogen prosthetic joint infections (npPJIs) s are complex infections requiring management by multidisciplinary teams that should be adapted to each clinical situation.

One-stage exchange should be avoided in periprosthetic joint infection cases with massive femoral bone loss or with history of any failed revision to treat periprosthetic joint infection

AIMS

There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247-1253.

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.

Diagnosis and management of the infected total knee replacement: a practical surgical guide

PURPOSE

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a significant burden in health care. Diagnosis and proper management are challenging. A standardised procedure for the diagnostic workup and surgical management provides clear benefits in outcome.

METHODS

Several diagnostic protocols and definitions for PJI were established in recent years. Proper PJI diagnosis remains critical for success and for choosing the optimal treatment option. A distinct workup of diagnostic steps, the evaluation of the results in a multidisciplinary setup and the meticulous surgical management of the infection are the key factors of successful treatment.

RESULTS

The management of PJI after TKA consists of early revision with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in early cases or staged revision in late infections beyond 30 days postoperative or after onset of acute symptoms. The revision is performed as a two-stage procedure with the use of a fixed or mobile antibiotic spacer, or in selected cases as a single-stage operation with the use of local and systemic antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper reflects the opinion of two revision surgeons who follow the same protocol for diagnosis and treatment of PJI after TKA, highlighting the key steps in diagnosis and management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Expert's opinion.

High Rate of Reinfection With New Bacteria Following One-Stage Exchange for Enterococcal Periprosthetic Infection of the Knee: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

A wide range of success rates following the surgical management of enterococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with a tendency toward worse outcomes have been reported. However, the role of 1-stage exchange remains under-investigated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate our results after the 1-stage knee exchange for enterococcal PJI.

METHODS

Forty patients were retrospectively included between 2002 and 2017 with a mean follow-up of survivors of 80 months (range 22-172; standard deviation [SD] = 5). Polymicrobial infections occurred in 45% (18/40) of patients. Patients' characteristics, joint-related data, and antibiotic therapy were recorded. Rates of enterococcal infection relapse, reinfection with new microorganisms, and re-revision for any reason were determined. Bivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors of infection recurrence.

RESULTS

Revision surgery was required in 22 cases (55%) with a mean time to revision surgery of 27 months (range 1-78; SD = 25). Indications for aseptic revisions (18%) included aseptic loosening (10%), periprosthetic fracture (5%), and patellar instability (3%). The most common cause of re-revision was a subsequent PJI (15/22; 68%) after a mean time of 22 months (range 1-77; SD = 24). Overall infection recurrence rate was 37.5% (15/40), substantially due to entirely non-enterococcal infections (9/15; 60%). Infection relapse with Enterococci occurred in 4 cases (10%) within 16 months postoperatively. Older patients (P = .05) and male gender (P = .05) were associated with a higher risk of infection recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Overcoming the Enterococci using the 1-stage exchange for knee PJI is achievable but the rate of reinfection due to new microorganisms is high . However, the overall infection recurrence rate is comparable to other treatment approaches.

Development of a Preoperative Risk Calculator for Reinfection Following Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

A recent systematic review demonstrated that reinfection rates following eradication of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be as high as 29%. This study aimed to develop a preoperative risk calculator for assessing patient's individual risk associated with reinfection following treatment of PJI in total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A total of 1081 consecutive patients who underwent revision TJA for PJI were evaluated. In total, 293 patients were diagnosed with TJA reinfection. A total of 56 risk factors, including patient characteristics and surgical variables, were evaluated with multivariate regression analysis. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was performed to evaluate the strength of the predictive model.

RESULTS

Of the 56 risk factors studied, 19 were found to have a significant effect as risk factor for TJA reinfection. The strongest predictors for TJA reinfection included previous PJI treatment techniques such as irrigation and debridement, the number of previous surgical interventions, medical comorbidities such as obesity, drug abuse, depression and smoking, as well as microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species. The combined area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of the risk calculator for periprosthetic hip and knee joint reinfection was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings demonstrate that surgical factors, including previous PJI surgical treatment techniques as well as the number of previous surgeries, alongside microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species have the strongest effect on the risk for periprosthetic THA and TKA joint reinfection, suggesting the limited applicability of the existing risk calculators for the development of PJI following primary TJA in predicting the risk of periprosthetic joint reinfection.

Treatment options in PJI - is two-stage still gold standard?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful treatment for osteoarthritis with good clinical outcomes 1,2. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA has a low incidence between 0.5 and 3% but it is nevertheless one of the most dreadful complications 3-6. Two-staged revisions are considered to be the gold standard for revision in chronic PJI with infection eradication rates of over 90% 7. Recently, similar infection eradication rates after one-staged revision arthroplasty have been reported 8-10, raising the question whether the two-staged approach can still be considered the gold standard. We therefore performed a literature review to analyse the correlation of one-staged and two-staged TKA revisions with recurrent infection rates and functional outcomes. Studies concerning PJI treated by one- or two-staged revision published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved by searching the databases PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 29 studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. Mean follow-up was at 4.9 ± 2.6 years. The mean infection eradication rate after one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 87 ± 8.8% vs. 83 ± 11.7%. The functional outcome measured by the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) of one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 80 ± 5.9 vs. 80 ± 3.9 points. One-staged revision arthroplasty in TKA appears to have similar infection eradication rates and functional outcomes compared to two-staged revision arthroplasty. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since selection bias may have played a significant role. Several criteria to guide the surgeon in selecting the appropriate procedure have been described, but the current recommendations are based on poor evidence as randomized controlled trials are lacking 11,12. Two-staged revision remains a successful treatment option which is rightly the gold standard. However, there is a variety of cases in which one-staged revision is a viable alternative, where similar success rates and functional outcome can be expected 7,13.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

Factors affecting outcome in the treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infections: results from a single-centre retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To report and analyse factors affecting the outcome of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive streptococcal PJIs was performed. Musculoskeletal Infection Society 2013 criteria were used. Outcome was compared with a prospective PJI cohort from the same institution.

RESULTS

The most common isolated streptococcal species was Streptococcus dysgalactiae (9/22, 41%) among 22 patients included. Surgical treatment consisted of DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention) in 12 (55%), one-stage revision arthroplasty in one (4%), two-stage revision arthroplasty in eight (37%) and implant removal in one (4%) patient. An infection free-outcome was achieved in 15 cases (68%), whilst seven (32%) patients failed initial revision and relapsed with the same pathogen, from which six were treated with DAIR and one with one-stage revision arthroplasty. No failures were observed in patients who received a two-stage revision. Failure rates did not differ in the cases treated with rifampin (1/5) from those without 6/17 (p = 0.55). There was no correlation between the length of antibiotic treatment and relapse (p = 0.723). In all failures, a persistent distant infection focus was identified at the time of relapse. Compared with our prospective PJI cohort, relapse rates were significantly higher 32% vs 12% (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

No correlation with the use of rifampin or length of antibiotic treatment was found. No failures were observed in patients who received a two-stage revision, which may be the surgical treatment of choice. A distant persisting infection focus could be the reason for PJI relapse with recurrent hematogenous seeding in the joint.

Improved treatment strategies can result in better outcomes following one-stage exchange surgery for MRSA periprosthetic joint infection

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-PJIs) are rare, with only a few studies reporting the treatment outcomes and even fewer reporting outcomes with one-stage exchange.Aim. This study aims to analyse the outcomes of one-stage exchange in the management of MRSA-PJIs.Methodology. Patients with MRSA-PJI of the hip and knee, who were treated with a one-stage exchange between 2001 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. The final cohort comprised of 29 patients, which included 23 hips and six knees. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1-9 years). Reinfection and complications rates after the one-stage exchange were analysed.Results. Overall infection control could be achieved in 93.1 % (27 out of 29 patients). The overall revision rate was 31.0% (9 patients), with three patients requiring an in-hospital revision (10.3 %). Six patients had to be revised after hospital discharge (20.7 %). Of the two reinfections, one had a growth of MRSA while the other was of methicillin-sensitive Staphyloccocus epidermidis.Conclusion. One-stage exchange surgery using current techniques could improve surgical outcomes with excellent results in the management of MRSA-PJIs.

Risk factors of uncontrolled periprosthetic knee joint infection after two-stage reimplantation

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection after total knee arthroplasty is a challenging problem, and physicians should identify risk factors to decrease recurrence. However, risk factors for reinfection with two-stage reimplantation have not yet been well established. The purpose of this study was to assess treatment outcomes of subsequent two-stage knee reimplantation and identify risk factors for uncontrolled periprosthetic knee joint infections.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 70 knees diagnosed with a periprosthetic knee joint infection treated with two-stage reimplantation between September 2011 and October 2016 at our institution. Patients in the controlled infection group (group C) required no further medication or surgical treatment within 2 years after reimplantation. Patients in the uncontrolled infection group (group U) displayed symptoms of active infection after resection arthroplasty or were reinfected after two-stage reimplantation. We compared group C and group U, and analyzed potential risk factors for uncontrolled prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

RESULTS

Of 70 knees included in this analysis, 53 (75.7%) were clinically deemed free from infection at the latest follow-up. The remaining 17 knees (24.3%) required additional surgical procedures after two-stage reimplantation. Demographics were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Wound complications were statistically more frequent in group U (p = 0.030). Pre-reimplantation C-reactive protein (CRP) was statistically different between groups C and U (0.44 and 1.70, respectively, p = 0.025). Among the cultured microorganisms, fungus species were statistically more frequently detected in group U compared with group C (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The reinfection rate of our two-stage reimplantation protocol was 24.3% in the included cases. Wound complications, higher pre-reimplantation CRP levels, and fungus species were statistically more common in group U compared with group C. Our findings will help in counseling patients and physicians to understand that additional caution may be required when treating PJI if the aforementioned risk factors are present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Synchronous Periprosthetic Joint Infections: The Need for All Artificial Joints to Be Aspirated Routinely

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication with increasing incidence. However, we are not aware of any robust data on patients having PJI at the same time in ≥2 joints that had undergone total joint arthroplasty, referred to as synchronous PJI throughout this article. The aims of this study were to investigate the probability of the development of synchronous PJI of another prosthetic joint and to identify possible clinical risk factors for the development of synchronous PJI. In addition, we aimed to determine whether routine aspiration of all other prosthetic joints was warranted after a diagnosis of PJI in a single joint.

METHODS

A total of 2,532 septic revision procedures were performed during the study period. In the final analysis, 644 patients (26 with synchronous PJI and 618 with non-synchronous PJI) with 1,508 prosthetic joints were included. The mean age (and standard deviation) was 71 ± 9.6 years. Using bivariate analyses, we calculated the odds of synchronous PJI as a function of various demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

A suspicious clinical presentation of the non-primary joint had the strongest association with synchronous PJI (odds ratio [OR], 58.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.4 to 152.8]). Additional associations with synchronous PJI were detected for a history of neoplasia (OR, 12 [95% CI, 3.9 to 37.2]), the use of immune-modulating therapy (OR, 9.5 [95% CI, 3.4 to 26.2]), the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis (OR, 8.4 [95% CI, 2.8 to 25]), and having ≥3 prosthetic joints (OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.37 to 6.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

Synchronous PJI is a rare but very serious complication and every prosthetic joint should be investigated meticulously. Suspicious clinical presentation, a history of neoplasia, sepsis, immune-modulating therapy, and ≥3 prosthetic joints were identified as risk factors and should increase the physician's vigilance. In the case of PJI, aspiration of each joint that had undergone total joint arthroplasty should be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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