One-stage exchange: it all began here

Validity of a preoperative scoring system for surgical management of periprosthetic hip infection: one-stage vs. two-stage revision

INTRODUCTION

There are no widely accepted algorithms for determining optimal treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to confirm the validity of a previously published scoring system in a larger number of patients to support a rational surgical treatment strategy for periprosthetic hip infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2001 and December 2020, we performed 155 consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for PJI, with mean follow-up of 6 years. One-stage revision THA was performed in 56 hips and two-stage revision THA in 99 hips. Prosthesis survival from recurrent infection was determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, using implant removal as the endpoint. The pre-operative scoring system (full score of 12 points), including 6 essential elements, was retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The 10-year survival rates were 98% for one-stage (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-100) and 87% (95% CI, 79-96) for two-stage revision THA. Multivariate Cox regression analysis provided a total preoperative score as an independent risk factor for implant removal (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.49; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity at the cut-off of 4 points on the scoring system were 80% and 91%, respectively. The average score for one-stage revision THA in successful and failed cases were 8.9 and 6.0, and for two-stage revision THA were 6.5 and 3.9, respectively. We found significant differences between successful cases in one- and two-stage revision THA (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative scoring system was useful for managing PJI. One-stage revision THA is recommended in patients scoring ≥ 9 points, and meticulously performed two-stage revision THA is encouraged for patients scoring ≥ 4 points.

A Meta-Analysis of Success Rates of One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revisions in Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) pose significant challenges following total joint arthroplasties and cause profound complications. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. One-stage revision involves the removal of the infected implant and simultaneous re-implantation of a new prosthesis in a single surgical procedure. The two-stage approach is traditionally more common in the United States and follows a deliberate sequence: the infected implant is first removed, followed by a period of antibiotic therapy, and then a second surgery for implant reinsertion. While two-stage revisions were traditionally considered the gold standard, recent advancements have introduced one-stage revisions as a viable alternative. One-stage revision offers the advantage of being a single procedure, significantly reducing the patient's downtime without a functioning knee. Currently, there has not been a comprehensive exploration of the comparative outcomes between two-stage revisions and one-stage revisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the outcomes of both one- and two-stage revisions for total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), by utilizing comparison studies as the foundation for analysis. Our search encompassed databases such as MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase, and Cochrane to identify articles examining the comparative efficacy and outcomes of one- and two-stage revision procedures between January 2000 and June 2023. We employed keywords relevant to knee PJIs to identify comparative studies reporting on success rates, reinfection rates, microbiological findings, and other pertinent outcomes. Statistical analysis for this investigation was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) with a standard significance threshold set at a p-value less than .05. This meta-analysis incorporated six comparison articles and 802 patients. Two-stage revisions (547 patients) were associated with greater success rates (i.e., infection eradication) than one-stage revisions (255 patients) (p = .03). The studies did not suggest a difference in the microbiology of the infections. Two-stage revisions are associated with higher success rates than one-stage revisions in the treatment of knee PJIs. Future randomized controlled trials should evaluate the optimization of the management of these complications.

Outcomes of rotating versus pure hinge knee arthroplasty in the setting of one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

Rotating or pure hinge knee prostheses are often used in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Five-year survival data of rotating hinge implants ranging from 52 to 90%, whereas pure hinge data are sparse. This study describes the results of both hinge knee prostheses after one-stage septic exchange.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-seven one-stage septic exchanges of a primary unconstrained total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to a cemented hinge prosthesis (117 rotating and 50 pure hinge TKAs) performed between 2008 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were stem extensions or augments used in primary TKA, history of extensor mechanism reconstruction, and a follow-up less than two years after surgery. Rates of reinfection, mechanical failures, and all-cause revision-free survival data were documented.

RESULTS

At five years, the all-cause revision-free survival was 77% (95% CI 69 to 82). Thirty-one patients (19%) had further revision for aseptic reasons. In the rotating hinge group, the mechanical failure rate was more than twice as high as in the pure hinge group (13% vs 6%), significantly influenced by higher body weight. At a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 21 (13%) patients had a reinfection and underwent a further surgery. Reinfection rates did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of hinge TKA in the revision of PJI shows favourable five year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival rates of 91% and 77%, respectively. Our study showed poorer results of the rotating hinge design. These results may help surgeons to choose proper implants in case of septic knee revision.

Do one-stage indications predict success following two-stage arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection?

Introduction: The 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) proposed criteria for one-stage exchange arthroplasty in treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to determine what proportion of PJI patients met the 2018 ICM criteria and how this affected infection-free survivorship for patients. Methods: All chronic PJI patients treated with two-stage exchange within our institution between 2017-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included cases met 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI and had a 2-year minimum follow-up. Treatment success was defined as Tier 1A in the 2019 MSIS working group definition. ICM one-stage criteria included non-immunocompromised host, absence of sepsis, adequate soft tissue for closure, known preoperative pathogen, and susceptibility. Immunocompromised host was analyzed as two separate definitions. Kaplan-Meier survivorship, Cox regression, and univariate analyses were performed. Results: A total of 293 chronic PJI patients were included. Overall, treatment failure occurred in 64 / 293 (21.8 %) patients. Only 13 % (n = 37 ) met ICM criteria definition no. 1 for one-stage exchange; 12 % (n = 33 ) met definition no. 2. In both definitions, infection-free survivorship at 2 years did not differ between patients who met and did not meet criteria (p > 0.05 ). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses demonstrated that the only variable predicting treatment failure was knee joint involvement (p = 0.01 ). Conclusions: We found that a very limited number of chronic PJI patients were suitable for a one-stage exchange. Furthermore, the supposition that healthier hosts with known pathogens (the basis of the ICM criteria) yield better PJI treatment outcomes was not observed. These results justify the ongoing multicenter randomized control trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage treatment for chronic PJI.

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.

Corynebacterium striatum Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection: An Uncommon Pathogen of Concern?

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty is indubitably a dominant elective surgery in orthopaedics, contributing to prodigious improvement in the quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis. One of the most potentially devastating complications of this operation is periprosthetic joint infection. Immunocompromised patients might be afflicted by infrequent low-virulence organisms not typically detected with conventional procedures. Consequently, employing advanced identification methods, such as the circumstantial sonication of orthopaedic implants, could be crucial to managing such cases.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a peculiar case of a 72-year-old female patient suffering from a chronic periprosthetic hip infection due to Corynebacterium striatum. The pathogen was only identified after rigorous sonication of the extracted implants. The overall management of this case was immensely exacting, primarily because of the patient's impaired immune system, and was finally treated with two-stage revision in our Institution.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although copious literature exists concerning managing periprosthetic hip infections, no concrete guidelines are available for such infections in multimorbid or immunocompromised patients with rare low-virulence microorganisms. Hence, a diagnostic work-up, antibiotic treatment and appropriate revision timeline must be determined. Sonication of extracted implants could be a powerful tool in the diagnostic arsenal, as it can aid in identifying rare microbes, such as Corynebacterium spp. Pertinent antibiotic treatment based on antibiogram analysis and apposite final revision-surgery timing are the pillars for effective therapy of such infections.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Corynebacterium striatum has been increasingly recognized as an emerging cause of periprosthetic hip infection in the last decade. A conspicuous rise in such reports has been observed in multimorbid or immunocompromised patients after the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is the first report of Corynebacterium striatum periprosthetic hip infection diagnosed solely after the sonication of extracted implants. This paper aims to increase awareness surrounding Corynebacterium spp. prosthetic joint infections, while highlighting the fields for further apposite research.

Excellent Survival Rate of Cemented Modular Stems in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infections With Massive Femoral Bone Loss: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis of 150 Cases

BACKGROUND

With the increasing incidence of total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is also an expected concurrent increase in revision THA (rTHA), which is known to have a high complication and re-revision rate. In the setting of infection, radical debridement is essential and options for femoral bone loss are limited. One viable solution is cemented modular stems, but limited evidence exists on their use in septic revision. This study aimed to analyze survival and complication related to the use of cemented modular stems in one-stage septic rTHA with severe femoral bone loss.

METHODS

The institutional database of patients who underwent rTHA for septic one-stage revision with cemented modular stems was reviewed. Exclusion criteria were patients aged less than 18 years and nonseptic or 2 stage revisions. Outcomes measured were complication, re-infection, re-operation, and survivorship of the implant. A total of 150 patients were included. The mean age was 68 years (range, 30 to 91), and the mean follow-up was 105 months (range, 1 to 150).

RESULTS

Treatment was considered successful in 81.3% of cases. Patients who underwent multiple prior surgeries demonstrated a lower rate of treatment success (P < .001). The main cause of failure was re-infection (11 of 28). Among cases failed for aseptic reasons (17 of 28), loosening of the cemented modular stem was the cause of re-revision in 2 patients (1.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of modular cemented stems is a viable option in case of septic one-stage rTHA associated with severe femoral bone loss. However, surgeons and patients should be aware that this treatment is still characterized by a high rate of complications, which may lead to further surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection using primary cementless stems as first-line implants: About 35 cases

INTRODUCTION

During infected total hip arthroplasty revisions (THAR), the need for systematic antibiotic cementation remains undefined.

HYPOTHESIS

Implantation of a primary cementless stem as first-line implant in 1-stage septic THAR provides results as good as those from a stem cemented with antibiotics in terms of infection resolution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 35 patients operated on for septic THAR with Avenir® cementless stem placement - between 2008 and 2018 at Besançon University Hospital - with a minimum follow-up of 2 years to define healing in the absence of infectious recurrence. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris, Oxford, and Merle D'Aubigné scores. Osseointegration was analyzed by the Engh radiographic score.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 5±2.6 years (2-11). The infection was cured in 32 of 35 (91.4%) patients. The median scores of the following were: Harris 77/100, Oxford 47.5/60 and Merle d'Aubigné 15/18. Of 32 femoral stems, 31 (96.8%) had radiographically stable osseointegration. Age greater than 80 years was a risk factor for failure to cure the infection during septic THAR.

DISCUSSION

A primary cementless stem as first-line implant plays a role in 1-stage septic THAR. It confers good results in terms of infection resolution and stem integration in the setting of loss of femoral bone substances rated Paprosky 1.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective case series.

Can serum C-reactive protein determine the timing of reimplantation in two-stage revised arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection?

BACKGROUND

There are no definitive guides to determine the timing of reimplantation in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasties (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study was to design to support a rational strategy of surgical treatment using serum C-reactive protein (CRP).

METHODS

We analyzed a total of 75 hips for PJI in the process of performing two-stage and multiple-stage revision THAs. CRP level was retrospectively evaluated every week and transformed to log2 (CRP) using a logistic regression model. Prosthesis survival from recurrent infection was determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, using implant removal as the endpoint. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated using each log2 (CRP) to assess predictions of recurrent infection.

RESULTS

The 10-year survival rates were 85% (95% confidence interval, 76-95) and 100% for two-stage and multiple-stage revision THAs, respectively. Preoperatively, at 1, 2, 3, and 5 weeks, log2 (CRP) was not associated with recurrent infection. In failed two-stage revision THAs, log2 (CRP) at 3 weeks divided by that at 2 weeks showed a significant difference. Failure was associated with a ratio of >4.0 for the CRP level between 3 and 2 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In two-stage revision THA for PJI, patients with CRP elevation from 2 weeks to 3 weeks, especially 4-fold elevation, suggests the need for further debridement and postponement of second-staged reimplantation.

1.5-Stage Versus 2-Stage Exchange Total Hip Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Comparison of Survivorships, Reinfections, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Management of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has traditionally consisted of a 2-stage approach. However, 1.5-stage exchange has garnered recent interest. We compared 1.5-stage to 2-stage exchange recipients. Specifically, we assessed (1) infection-free survivorship and risk factors for reinfection; (2) 2-year surgical/medical outcomes (eg, reoperations, readmissions); (3) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR); and (4) radiographic outcomes (ie, progressive radiolucent lines, subsidences, and failures).

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 1.5-stage or planned 2-stage THAs. A total of 123 hips were included (1.5-stage: n = 54; 2-stage: n = 69) with mean clinical follow-up of 2.5 years (up to 8 years). Bivariate analyses assessed incidences of medical and surgical outcomes. Additionally, HOOS-JR scores and radiographs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The 1.5-stage exchange had 11% greater infection-free survivorship at final follow-up compared to 2 stages (94% versus 83%, P = .048). Morbid obesity was the only independent risk factor demonstrating increased reinfection among both cohorts. No differences in surgical/medical outcomes were observed between groups (P = .730). HOOS-JR scores improved markedly for both cohorts (1.5-stage difference = 44.3, 2-stage difference = 32.5; P < .001). A total of 82% of 1.5-stage patients did not demonstrate progressive femoral or acetabular radiolucencies, while 94% of 2-stage recipients did not have femoral radiolucencies and 90% did not have acetabular radiolucencies.

CONCLUSION

The 1.5-stage exchange appeared to be an acceptable treatment alternative for periprosthetic joint infections after THAs with noninferior infection eradication. Therefore, this procedure should be considered by joint surgeons for treatment of periprosthetic hip infections.

Surgical Technique: Robotic-Assisted 1.5-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

A 1.5-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection has been described; however, achieving a balanced and well-aligned construct can sometimes be difficult given the bony defects often encountered in these cases. The use of robotic navigation technologies allows for accurate and precise implant placement. This technique report details the utilization of robotic navigation in a 1.5-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection and describes the outcome of 6 patients. This technique guide highlights how robotic technology can account for many commonly encountered bone voids, joint line identification, and component orientation, while achieving a balanced and well-aligned knee.

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.

Single-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection after knee and hip arthroplasties: indications and treatments

Single-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection has been introduced 40 years ago. This option is gaining more and more attention as well as popularity. It is a reliable treatment for the chronic periprosthetic joint infection after knee and hip arthroplasties when implemented by an experienced multi-disciplinary team. However, its indications and corresponding treatments remain controversial. This review focused on the indications and specific treatments related to the option, with an attempt to help surgeons to use this method with more favorable outcomes.

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.

Diagnostic utility of open biopsy in patients with two culture-negative aspirations in the diagnostic work-up of periprosthetic joint infection

INTRODUCTION

Different approaches have been proposed for bacterial identification in patients with a suspected periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). If a one-stage procedure is considered, a higher rate of preoperative bacterial identification can be achieved if biopsy is included in the diagnostic work-up. The performance of open biopsy (OB) in the context of PJI has not been clearly determined yet. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of an OB added to two consecutive culture-negative joint aspirations during PJI workup.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the OB data from a single institution. Patients under PJI work-up of the hip or knee with two culture-negative periprosthetic aspirations who underwent OB were included. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) criteria as gold standard. Patients undergoing urgent irrigation and debridement and patients with history of surgery to the affected joint in the prior 6 weeks were excluded.

RESULTS

126 patients were included in this study. 62 (49.2%) patients had prior revisions, 48 of them due to PJI. The sensitivity and specificity of OB was 69.4% and 89.1%, respectively. The OB procedure led to the identification of the causative germ in 50 out of 126 (40%) cases so they could undergo one-stage (septic) exchange.

CONCLUSION

The OB is a valuable resource if preoperative synovial fluid cultures are negative, a high suspicion of infection persists and a one-stage procedure is preferred. It intends bacteria identification and allows surgeons to evaluate prosthetic complications for further surgical procedures.

One- or two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee prosthesis?

A prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is possibly the most significant potential complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and is associated with substantial morbidity and socioeconomic burden. It is a devastating complication for both the patient and the surgeon alike. A two-stage revision approach for infected TKA has been the standard for surgical management; however, there is growing interest in single-stage revision surgery due to fewer procedures, reduced inpatient hospital stay and reduced costs to healthcare systems. A one-stage exchange is indicated when there is no sign of systemic sepsis and in cases where a microorganism has been isolated. It involves removal of the old prosthesis, debridement of all infected tissue, a copious washout and re-draping, and finally, re-implantation of a new prosthesis. The two-stage approach involves the use of an antibiotic spacer before the second stage is carried out. The length of time between the stages is discussed. Patients with a PJI should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. We recommend these patients are managed in specialist arthroplasty centres by high volume revision arthroplasty specialists.

Survival analysis of one-stage exchange of infected unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-center study with minimum 3 years follow-up

PURPOSE

The rates of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are increasing yet little data exists regarding management of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after UKA, particularly utilizing one-stage revision. The aim of this study was to determine the septic and all-cause revision-free survival of UKA PJIs treated with one-stage revision, as well as functional outcomes and risk factors for failure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of one-stage septic revisions with a hinged or rotating hinged implant between 2000 and 2015 at a single institution was performed. Results of 15 patients with a minimum of 3-year follow-up (mean = 93 months; range 37-217) were evaluated by means of infection control, survivorship, patient reported functional score and possible causal factors for a re-revision. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis were used.

RESULTS

After a mean of 8 years of follow-up infection control rate was 93.3%, the survivorship free of any reoperation, including both septic and aseptic causes, was 80% at 5 years and 64.2% at ten years and average Lysholm score was 72.7 ± 21.3 (33-100).

CONCLUSION

One-stage revision for PJI of UKA using a hinged knee design has excellent infection-free survival at mid to long-term follow-up. Likewise, patient reported functional outcomes are promising. However, one-third of patients required aseptic reoperation and aseptic loosening was the dominant etiology.

Treatment patterns and failure rates associated with prosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A systematic review

Background

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a rare but challenging complication. A paucity of literature exists regarding the management of PJI in UKA. This systematic review aims to assess current treatment patterns in UKA PJI and analyze the failure rates associated with treatment.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched for studies that presented cases of PJI following UKA. Data regarding study design, country of publication, index procedure type, diagnosis of PJI, number and incidence of PJI, timing of PJI (acute versus chronic), treatment, and outcomes were recorded. Failure rates in acute and chronic PJI as well as total failure rates were analyzed.

Results

Sixteen articles were identified that met inclusion criteria. These included 97 PJI cases (37 acute, 58 chronic, 2 unknown timing); incidence across all studies of 0.80%. The most common treatment for all PJI cases was debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) (40.2%), followed by two-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (33.0%), one-stage conversion to TKA (23.7%), and one-stage exchange UKA (3.1%). There were no significant differences in failure rates across procedures for acute, chronic or overall PJI management (p > 0.05 for all).

Conclusion

This systematic review found relatively few studies reporting on PJI after UKA compared to the available TKA evidence. Further research is warranted to better elucidate the most appropriate treatment of PJI after UKA in both the acute and chronic setting along with risk factors for failure.

Infection after total joint replacement of the hip and knee: research programme including the INFORM RCT

Background

People with severe osteoarthritis, other joint conditions or injury may have joint replacement to reduce pain and disability. In the UK in 2019, over 200,000 hip and knee replacements were performed. About 1 in 100 replacements becomes infected, and most people with infected replacements require further surgery.

Objectives

To investigate why some patients are predisposed to joint infections and how this affects patients and the NHS, and to evaluate treatments.

Design

Systematic reviews, joint registry analyses, qualitative interviews, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses and a discrete choice questionnaire.

Setting

Our studies are relevant to the NHS, to the Swedish health system and internationally.

Participants

People with prosthetic joint infection after hip or knee replacement and surgeons.

Interventions

Revision of hip prosthetic joint infection with a single- or two-stage procedure.

Main outcome measures

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and reinfection. Cost-effectiveness of revision strategies over 18 months from two perspectives: health-care provider and Personal Social Services, and societal.

Data sources

National Joint Registry; literature databases; published cohort studies; interviews with 67 patients and 35 surgeons; a patient discrete choice questionnaire; and the INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) randomised trial.

Review methods

Systematic reviews of studies reporting risk factors, diagnosis, treatment outcomes and cost comparisons. Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Results

In registry analyses, about 0.62% and 0.75% of patients with hip and knee replacement, respectively, had joint infection requiring surgery. Rates were four times greater after aseptic revision. The costs of inpatient and day-case admissions in people with hip prosthetic joint infection were about five times higher than those in people with no infection, an additional cost of > £30,000. People described devastating effects of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and treatment. In the treatment of hip prosthetic joint infection, a two-stage procedure with or without a cement spacer had a greater negative impact on patient well-being than a single- or two-stage procedure with a custom-made articulating spacer. Surgeons described the significant emotional impact of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and the importance of a supportive multidisciplinary team. In systematic reviews and registry analyses, the risk factors for hip and knee prosthetic joint infection included male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, high body mass index, poor physical status, diabetes, dementia and liver disease. Evidence linking health-care setting and surgeon experience with prosthetic joint infection was inconsistent. Uncemented fixation, posterior approach and ceramic bearings were associated with lower infection risk after hip replacement. In our systematic review, synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy for prosthetic joint infection. Systematic reviews and individual patient data meta-analysis showed similar reinfection outcomes in patients with hip or knee prosthetic joint infection treated with single- and two-stage revision. In registry analysis, there was a higher rate of early rerevision after single-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection, but, overall, 40% fewer operations are required as part of a single-stage procedure than as part of a two-stage procedure. The treatment of hip or knee prosthetic joint infection with early debridement and implant retention may be effective in > 60% of cases. In the INFORM randomised controlled trial, 140 patients with hip prosthetic joint infection were randomised to single- or two-stage revision. Eighteen months after randomisation, pain, function and stiffness were similar between the randomised groups (p = 0.98), and there were no differences in reinfection rates. Patient outcomes improved earlier in the single-stage than in the two-stage group. Participants randomised to a single-stage procedure had lower costs (mean difference –£10,055, 95% confidence interval –£19,568 to –£542) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval –0.07 to 0.18) than those randomised to a two-stage procedure. Single-stage was the more cost-effective option, with an incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year of £11,167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21,696). In a discrete choice questionnaire completed by 57 patients 18 months after surgery to treat hip prosthetic joint infection, the most valued characteristics in decisions about revision were the ability to engage in valued activities and a quick return to normal activity.

Limitations

Some research was specific to people with hip prosthetic joint infection. Study populations in meta-analyses and registry analyses may have been selected for joint replacement and specific treatments. The INFORM trial was not powered to study reinfection and was limited to 18 months’ follow-up. The qualitative study subgroups were small.

Conclusions

We identified risk factors, diagnostic biomarkers, effective treatments and patient preferences for the treatment of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. The risk factors include male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, specific comorbidities and surgical factors. Synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy. Infection is devastating for patients and surgeons, both of whom describe the need for support during treatment. Debridement and implant retention is effective, particularly if performed early. For infected hip replacements, single- and two-stage revision appear equally efficacious, but single-stage has better early results, is cost-effective at 18-month follow-up and is increasingly used. Patients prefer treatments that allow full functional return within 3–9 months.

Future work

For people with infection, develop information, counselling, peer support and care pathways. Develop supportive care and information for patients and health-care professionals to enable the early recognition of infections. Compare alternative and new treatment strategies in hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Assess diagnostic methods and establish NHS diagnostic criteria.

Study registration

The INFORM randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN10956306. All systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO (as CRD42017069526, CRD42015023485, CRD42018106503, CRD42018114592, CRD42015023704, CRD42017057513, CRD42015016559, CRD42015017327 and CRD42015016664).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision).

INTERVENTIONS

A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection remains a significant challenge for arthroplasty surgeons globally. Over the last few decades, there has been much advancement in terms of treatment and diagnosis, however, the fight rages on. As management of periprosthetic joint infections continues to evolve, it is critical to reflect back on current debridement practices to establish common ground as well as identify areas for future research and improvement. BODY: In order to understand the debridement techniques of periprosthetic joint infections, one must also understand how to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection. Multiple definitions have been elucidated over the years with no single consensus established but rather sets of criteria. Once a diagnosis has been established the decision of debridement method becomes whether to proceed with single vs two-stage revision based on the probability of infection as well as individual patient factors. After much study, two-stage revision has emerged as the gold standard in the management of periprosthetic infections but single-stage remains prominent with further and further research.

CONCLUSION

Despite decades of data, there is no single treatment algorithm for periprosthetic joint infections and subsequent debridement technique. Our review touches on the goals of debridement while providing a perspective as to diagnosis and the particulars of how intraoperative factors such as intraarticular irrigation can play pivotal roles in infection eradication. By providing a perspective on current debridement practices, we hope to encourage future study and debate on how to address periprosthetic joint infections best.

Microbiological Advantages of Open Incisional Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infections

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a serious complication following total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). When preoperative synovial fluid cultures remain inconclusive, open incisional joint biopsy (OIB) can support causative microorganism identification. Objective: This study investigates the potential benefit of OIB in THA and TKA patients with suspected PJI and ambigious diagnostic results following synovial fluid aspiration. Methods: We retrospectively assessed all patients treated from 2016 to 2020 with suspected PJI. Comparing the microbiology of OIB and the following revision surgery, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the number needed to treat (NNT). Results: We examined the diagnostic validity of OIB in 38 patients (20 female) with a median age of 66.5 years. In THA patients (n = 10), sensitivity was 75%, specificity was 66.67%, PPV was 60%, NPV was 80%, and NNT was 2.5. In TKA patients (n = 28), sensitivity was 62.5%, specificity was 95.24%, PPV was 83.33%, NPV was 86.96%, and NNT was 1.42. Conclusions: Our results indicate that OIB represents an adequate diagnostic tool when previously assessed microbiological results remain inconclusive. Particularly in TKA patients, OIB showed an exceptionally high specificity, PPV, and NPV, whereas the predictive validity of the diagnosis of PJI in THA patients remained low.

Is a preoperative pathogen detection a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip?

BACKGROUND

A preoperative pathogen detection is considered a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to most guidelines. This study compares patients with and without preoperative pathogen detection undergoing one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip. The authors put up the hypothesis that a preoperative pathogen detection is no prerequisite in selected cases undergoing one-stage exchange.

METHODS

30 consecutive patients with PJI of the hip, treated with one-stage exchange, between 2011 and 2021, were retrospectively included. Mean age was 70 years and mean follow-up 2.1 ± 1.8 years. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society. One-stage exchange was performed in (1) chronic PJI longer than 4 weeks, (2) well-retained bone condition, (3) absence of multiple prior revisions for PJI (≤ 2) with absence of difficult-to-treat pathogens in the past, and (4) necessity/preference for early mobility due to comorbidities/age.

RESULTS

One-stage exchange was performed in 20 patients with and in 10 without a preoperative pathogen detection. Age (71 years, 68 years, p = 0.519), sex (50% and 30% males, p = 0.440), American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (2.2, 2.4, p = 0.502), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3, 4, p = 0.530) did not differ among the two groups. No significant differences were noted concerning preoperative CRP (15 mg/l, 43 mg/l, p = 0.228), synovial cell count (15.990/nl, 5.308/nl, p = 0.887), radiological signs of loosening (55%, 50%, p = 0.999), and intraoperative histopathology. Except a higher rate of coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%, 20%, p = 0.019) in patients with a preoperative pathogen detection, no significant differences in pathogen spectrum were identified among groups. Revision for PJI recurrence was performed in one patient with an initial preoperative pathogen detection (3.3%). Additional revisions were performed for dislocation in two and postoperative hematoma in one patient. Revision rate for both septic and aseptic causes (p = 0.999), stay in hospital (16 and 15 days, p = 0.373) and modified Harris Hip Score (60, 71, p = 0.350) did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with and without a preoperative pathogen detection did not show significant differences concerning baseline characteristics, clinical and functional outcomes at 2 years. An absent preoperative pathogen detection is no absolute contraindication for one-stage exchange in chronic PJI, if involving good bone quality and absence of multiple prior revisions.

Survival and Outcomes of 1.5-Stage vs 2-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Prosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Traditional management of prosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) consists of a 2-stage approach. However, 1.5-stage exchange has seen preliminary success, whereby metal femoral and all-polyethylene tibia components are placed without intention for subsequent second stage. We sought to examine all patients who underwent a 1.5-stage exchange TKA at a single institution compared to historical 2-stage controls. We assessed the following: (1) infection-free survivorship and risk factors for reinfection; (2) 1-year surgical/medical outcomes; (3) patient-reported outcomes (ie, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement [KOOS JR]); and (4) radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing a 1.5-stage (between 2015 and 2019) and 2-stage exchange TKA (between 2011 and 2016) at a single institution. A total of 162 knees were included (1.5-stage: 114; 2-stage: 48) with mean clinical follow-up of 2.6 years. KOOS JR scores and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at last clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

The 1.5-stage exchange TKA resulted in a 10.1% difference in infection-free survival (85.1% vs 75.0%, P = .158), compared to 2-stage exchange. Prior prosthetic joint infection was found to be an independent risk factor for reinfection (P = .030). Overall, postoperative complications were lower among 1.5-stage exchanges (8.8% vs 31.3%, P < .001). KOOS JR scores improved more from baseline among 1.5-staged (Δ24.7 vs Δ16.6, P < .001). Radiographic review did not demonstrate any progressive radiolucent lines, subsidences, or failures in either group.

CONCLUSION

A 1.5-stage exchange TKA is an effective alternative to the traditional 2-stage protocols with noninferior infection eradication and absence of radiographic complications at over 2 years of mean follow-up.

An Antibiotic-Loaded Hydrogel Demonstrates Efficacy as Prophylaxis and Treatment in a Large Animal Model of Orthopaedic Device-Related Infection

Local antibiotic therapy is increasingly being recognised for its role in preventing and treating orthopaedic device-related infection (ODRI). A bioresorbable, injectable gentamicin-loaded hydrogel has been developed to deliver local antibiotics at the time of surgery with potential for both prevention and treatment of ODRI. In a prophylaxis model, the antibiotic hydrogel was compared with systemic perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis alone in twelve sheep (six per group) at the time of intramedullary (IM) nail insertion to the tibia, which was inoculated with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). In a treatment model of single-stage revision surgery, adjunctive antibiotic-loaded hydrogel was compared with systemic antibiotics alone in a single stage revision of MSSA infection associated with a tibia intramedullary nail in eleven sheep (five/six per group). The primary endpoint was quantitative microbiological results of soft tissue, bone and sonicate fluid from explanted hardware at the time of euthanasia. At euthanasia, the control sheep that received no local antibiotics in the prophylaxis model were all culture-positive (median 1x10⁸, range 7x10⁶-3x10⁸ colony forming units, CFU) while only two of six sheep receiving local gentamicin had any culture positive biopsies (median 1x10¹, range 0 - 1x10⁵ CFU). For the treatment model, sheep receiving only systemic antibiotics were all culture-positive (median 8x10⁵, range 2x10³- 9x10⁶ CFU) while only two of six sheep treated with gentamicin-loaded hydrogel had any culture positive biopsies (median 3x10², range 0 - 7x10⁴ CFU). Local gentamicin concentrations measured in extracellular fluid in the tibial canal show a burst release of gentamicin from the hydrogel. Serum gentamicin concentrations peaked in both models at one day post application and were below detection limit thereafter. This study has demonstrated the effective use of a locally delivered antibiotic hydrogel for both the prevention and treatment of ODRI that is superior to that of systemic antibiotics alone. Future studies will endeavour to translate from preclinical to clinical research trials.

On the value and limitations of incorporating a "clean phase" into the surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections - an illustrative cadaveric study using fluorescent powder

Purposes

A septic revision of an artificial joint is routinely split up in a so-called dirty phase and a clean phase. The measures taken to initiate the start of the clean phase vary significantly between musculoskeletal infection centers. We performed simulations of one-step exchanges of infected THAs and sought to 1) determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on the sterile field, and 2) determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the new prosthesis completely clean.

Methods

Nine fresh frozen cadaveric hips were used and primary THA was undertaken via a direct anterior approach. Before implantation of the components varying amounts of fluorescent powder (GloGerm) were deposited, simulating bacterial infection. Second, a one-step exchange was performed via a posterolateral approach. After implant removal, debridement, and lavage, randomization determined which clean phase protocol was followed, i.e. no, some or full additional measures. Finally, the new prosthesis was re-implanted.

In order to determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on contamination of the sterile field standardized UV light-enhanced photographs were obtained of 1) the gloves, 2) the instrument table, 3) the drapes, and 4) the wound and these were ranked on cleanliness by a blinded panel of hip surgeons.

In order to determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the prosthesis completely clean, the implant was taken out again at the end of the one-step exchange and inspected for contamination under UV light.

Results

The gloves, the instrument table, the drapes and the wound were significantly cleaner after a clean phase using full additional measures compared to partial or no additional measures (p < 0.000). Partial measures were able to reduce some of the contamination of the gloves and the wound, but had no effect on the drapes and the instrument table. All re-implanted implants were contaminated with some amount of fluorescent powder at the end of the one-step exchange.

Conclusions

We advise to incorporate a clean phase with full additional measures into the surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections, as partial measures seem to be a poor compromise.

Level of evidence

Not applicable (cadaveric study).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-022-00467-x.

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.

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 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.

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.

Preparation of new bio-based antibacterial acrylic bone cement via modification with a biofunctional monomer of nitrofurfuryl methacrylate

The new bio-based antibacterial p(NFMA-co-MMA) bone cement exhibits excellent antibacterial performance in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

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.

Resection of the proximal femur during one-stage revision for infected hip arthroplasty : risk factors and effectiveness

AIMS

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions.

METHODS

In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years' time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions.

CONCLUSION

Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678-1685.

Risk factors for mortality following one-stage septic hip arthroplasty - a case-control study

PURPOSE

Despite good clinical outcomes and a high success rate, there is a comparatively high mortality after one stage septic exchange of total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for mortality in the hospitalization period after one-stage septic exchange of THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed in our database all patients who had a one-stage septic exchange for periprosthetic infection of THA and died during hospitalization (n = 33). The control group was matched semi-randomly by surgical procedure (n = 121) who did not die during hospitalization. The two groups were analyzed for risk factors such as age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and high-/low-virulence bacteria.

RESULTS

In the deceased group, 16 patients were female and 17 were male with a mean age at surgery of 73.2 years. In the control group, there were 55 females and 66 males with an average age at surgery of 68.2 years. Comparing the two groups, the deceased group had a significantly higher proportion of liver disease as well as higher rate of pulmonary embolism, apoplexy, and/or myocardial infarction, an increased CCI with an average of 6.5 and advanced age. Further demographic and surgery-related parameters especially high- or low-virulent germs were not identified as risk factors for mortality during the hospitalization period. The binominal logistic regression analysis showed that the probability of an inpatient death following one-stage septic exchange of THA increases by a factor of 3.079, with each additional point of the CCI.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, advanced age and high CCI are the main risk factors for mortality after single-stage septic change of THA. However, high-virulence bacteria have no influence on the mortality during the hospitalization period after one-stage septic exchange of THA.

Outcomes of single- and two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection : long-term outcomes of changing clinical practice in a specialist centre

AIMS

Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 292 consecutive first-time rTKAs for chronic PJI were included: 82 single-stage (28.1%); and 210 two-stage (71.9%) revisions. The mean age was 71 years (27 to 90), with 165 females (57.4%), and a mean BMI of 30.9 kg/m² (20 to 53). Significantly more patients with a known infecting organism were in the single-stage group (93.9% vs 80.47%; p = 0.004). The infecting organism was identified preoperatively in 246 cases (84.2%). At a mean follow-up of 6.3 years (2.0 to 17.6), the failure rate was 6.1% in the single-stage, and 12% in the two-stage groups. All failures occurred within four years of treatment. The presence of a sinus was an independent risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 4.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.593 to 15.505; p = 0.006), as well as age > 80 years (OR 5.962; 95% CI 1.156 to 30.73; p = 0.033). The ten-year patient survivorship rate was 72% in the single-stage group compared with 70.5% in the two-stage group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.517).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage rTKA is an effective strategy with a high success rate comparable to two-stage approach in appropriately selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1373-1379.

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.

[Manual addition of antibiotics to industrial bone cement mixes : Investigations of the dry mix in the cement cartridge during manual admixture to polymer-active substance mixtures]

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection (PPI) is a rare but serious complication. An elementary component of the therapy of PPI is the use of bone cement with the addition of antibiotics. For targeted therapy, manual mixing of antibiotics with industrially produced bone cement mixtures is often necessary. Possible problems resulting from manual mixing have not been described sufficiently so far.

OBJECTIVES

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to describe the influence of the additional homogenisation by dry mixing of a polymer-active substance mixture on the quality of manually added cement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the laboratory-based study, four cement samples were prepared using different methods for manual addition and homogenisation of antibiotics (vancomycin). The reference control was Copal® G + V (Heraeus Medical GmbH, Wehrheim, Germany), to which the vancomycin (V) had already been industrially added. The samples were then examined for mechanical, microbiological and microscopic parameters.

RESULTS

In the mechanical and microbiological results, no statistically significant differences were found between the manually added mixtures and the reference. After dry mixing of the polymer powder, the inner surface of the mixing cartridges used showed signs of scratching in the microscopic examination and showed indications of abrasion during mixing.

CONCLUSION

The manual addition of antibiotics to industrially produced bone cement should be reserved for selected indications if the bone cement mixtures produced by industry are not sufficient.

Two-Stage Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision With Extended Antibiotic Spacer Use

Despite the many benefits of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the treatment of degenerative arthritis, infection of the total knee prosthesis presents a dangerous post-operative complication affecting 0.5-1.9% of all cases. Infection after the first three post-operative weeks is treated with either one or two-stage revision operations involving the removal of all prosthetic components. Two-stage revision operations are more commonly used and involve the removal of prosthetic components followed by the implantation of a cement mold infused with antibiotics (antibiotic spacer) as well as systemic antibiotic treatment for four to six weeks before prosthetic reimplantation. This case report details a TKA revision in a patient with osteoarthritis of the knee. The patient presented with an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count nearly two years after the primary operation and was found to have an infected total knee prosthetic. A two-stage revision was planned but due to scheduling disruption by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the second stage of the operation was delayed until 12 months after the stage one operation. The patient ambulated without pain on an antibiotic spacer for 12 months, providing information about the long-term use of spacers. This case also offers a look at a potential benefit to one-stage operations, which have been shown in the literature to have similar outcomes as two-stage operations. The patient had a medical history of psoriasis and immunosuppressive treatment with methotrexate, two risk factors for prosthetic joint infection, and may have benefited from prophylactic antibiotic therapy extending beyond the perioperative period. The goal of this case report is to detail the prolonged use of an antibiotic spacer, examine the risks and benefits of one and two-stage total knee revisions, and discuss prophylactic antibiotic use in high-risk patients following TKA.

Preliminary clinical results of coated porous tibia cones in septic and aseptic revision knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To analyze the first results of calcium-phosphate-coated porous tibia cones.

METHODS

Patients treated with TrabecuLink^®-CaP Cones were retrospectively recruited from January 2016 to December 2017. These custom-made cones were produced using titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4 V (Tilastan^®) and using additive manufacturing with a special calcium-phosphate coating (HX^®-coating). Clinical outcome was evaluated using Oxford Knee Score. For radiological evaluation of the implants, patients sent us outpatient taken radiographs. A minimum follow-up of one year was required. Lastly, we analyzed postoperative complications and revision rates.

RESULTS

52 patients with revision knee arthroplasty (RKA) were recruited for final analysis, of whom, we had 17 septic RKAs (33%) and 35 aseptic cases of RKA (67%). The bone defects were grouped into 17 AORI Type 2A (32.7%), 14 Type 2B (26.9%) and 21 Type 3 (40.4%). After a mean follow-up of 22 months (13.2-34.8; SD = ± 10), we had 4 surgical revisions (7.7%), 2 septic and 2 aseptic cases. The mean Oxford Knee Score was 28.6 points (8-47; SD = ± 10). 22 of 28 radiographs (78.6%) showed regular positioning of the cones and TKAs at a mean follow-up of 16.8 months (13.2-34.8; SD = ± 6). Three patients (10.7%) showed slight radiolucencies in the bone-cement interfaces and 3 patients (10.7%) had beginning heterotopic ossifications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the initial clinical results of calcium-phosphate-coated tibia cones showing a good functional outcome. Further research should focus on long-term clinical and radiological follow-up.

1.5-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a challenging problem. The purpose of this study was to outline a novel technique to treat TKA PJI. We define 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty as placing an articulating spacer with the intent to last for a prolonged time.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed from 2007 to 2019 to evaluate patients treated with 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for TKA PJI. Inclusion criteria included: articulating knee spacer(s) remaining in situ for 12 months and the patient deferring a second-stage reimplantation because the patient had acceptable function with the spacer (28 knees) or not being a surgical candidate (three knees). Thirty-one knees were included with a mean age of 63 years, mean BMI 34.4 kg/m², 12 were female, with a mean clinical follow-up of 2.7 years. Cobalt-chrome femoral and polyethylene tibial components were used. We evaluated progression to second-stage reimplantation, reinfection, and radiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, 25 initial spacers were in situ (81%). Five knees retained their spacer(s) for some time (mean 1.5 years) and then underwent a second-stage reimplantation; one of the five had progressive radiolucent lines but no evidence of component migration. Three knees (10%) had PJI reoccurrence. Four had progressive radiolucent lines, but there was no evidence of component migration in any knees.

CONCLUSIONS

1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty may be a reasonable method to treat TKA PJI. At a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, there was an acceptable rate of infection recurrence and implant durability.

Preparation of antibacterial acrylic bone cement with methacrylate derived from benzothiazole

Methacrylate derived from benzothiazole (BTTMA) was incorporated into acrylic bone cement with a series of mass ratio (5 wt%, 10 wt%, and 15 wt%) with the aim to endow antibacterial activity. Properties such as dough time (t_dough), setting time (t_set), maximum temperature (T_peak), fluid uptake, water solubility, mechanical properties, and biocompatibility of BTTMA containing bone cements were all investigated. Bone cement without BTTMA was used as control and named as plain cement. The results showed that, after incorporating BTTMA, t_dough, flexural modulus, compressive strength of bone cements could be increased, while t_set, T_peak, fluid uptake, water solubility, and flexural strength would be reduced. All of BTTMA containing bone cements did not show hemolytic activity and cell toxicity, but only bone cement with 15 wt% of BTTMA showed antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).

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.

Single-stage revision of MRSA orthopedic device-related infection in sheep with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel

Local antimicrobial therapy is an integral aspect of treating orthopedic device-related infection (ODRI), which is conventionally administered via polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. PMMA, however, is limited by a suboptimal antibiotic release profile and a lack of biodegradability. In this study, we compare the efficacy of PMMA versus an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel in a single-stage revision for chronic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ODRI in sheep. Antibiofilm activity of the antibiotic combination (gentamicin and vancomycin) was determined in vitro. Swiss alpine sheep underwent a single-stage revision of a tibial intramedullary nail with MRSA infection. Local gentamicin and vancomycin therapy was delivered via hydrogel or PMMA (n = 5 per group), in conjunction with systemic antibiotic therapy. In vivo observations included: local antibiotic tissue concentration, renal and liver function tests, and quantitative microbiology on tissues and hardware post-mortem. There was a nonsignificant reduction in biofilm with an increasing antibiotic concentration in vitro (p = 0.12), confirming the antibiotic tolerance of the MRSA biofilm. In the in vivo study, four out of five sheep from each treatment group were culture-negative. Antibiotic delivery via hydrogel resulted in 10-100 times greater local concentrations for the first 2-3 days compared with PMMA and were comparable thereafter. Systemic concentrations of gentamicin were minimal or undetectable in both groups, while renal and liver function tests were within normal limits. This study shows that a single-stage revision with hydrogel or PMMA is equally effective, although the hydrogel offers certain practical benefits over PMMA, which make it an attractive proposition for clinical use.

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.

Trends in the treatment of infected knee arthroplasty

Essential treatment methods for infected knee arthroplasty involve DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention), and one and two-stage exchange arthroplasty.

Aggressive debridement with the removal of all avascular tissues and foreign materials that contain biofilm is mandatory for all surgical treatment modalities.

DAIR is a viable option with an acceptable success rate and can be used as a first surgical procedure for patients who have a well-fixed, functioning prosthesis without a sinus tract for acute-early or late-hematogenous acute infections with no more than four weeks (most favourable being < seven days) of symptoms. Surgeons must focus on the isolation of the causative organism with sensitivities to bactericidal treatment as using one-stage exchange.

One-stage exchange is indicated when the patients have:

minimal bone loss/soft tissue defect allowing primary wound closure,

easy to treat micro-organisms,

absence of systemic sepsis and

absence of extensive comorbidities.

There are no validated serum or synovial biomarkers to determine optimal timing of re-implantation for two-stage exchange.

Antibiotic-free waiting intervals and joint aspiration before the second stage are no longer recommended. The decision to perform aspiration should be made based on the index of suspicion for persistent infection.

Re-implantation can be performed when the treating medical team feels that the clinical signs of infection are under control and serological tests are trending downwards.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:672-683. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190069