Are silver-coated megaprostheses superior to uncoated megaprostheses in managing chronic end-stage periprosthetic hip and knee infection?

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes for silver coated megaprostheses (SC-MP) used in cases of end-stage periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have not been clearly defined. Although attractive, concerns over implant longevity and the risk of infection relapse exist among the scientific community. Therefore, we sought to investigate the effect of silver coating in lower-extremity MPs used in such difficult-to-treat scenarios. The study's primary hypothesis was that the periprosthetic infection control rate would be higher in patients with silver-coated implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Non-interventional retrospective study with a historical comparison group. We identified all consecutive end-stage hip and knee PJI cases at our center managed with exchange arthroplasty using a silver-coated megaprosthesis from January 2016 to March 2021, these cases were compared with a historical cohort of end-stage PJI cases managed with uncoated megaprostheses. The main outcome studied was infection control rate. Secondarily, we analyzed the short-to-medium-term survivorship of this type of silver-coated implant.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine megaprostheses used in cases of end-stage PJI were included in this study. We identified 30 cases of chronic hip or knee PJI in which a silver-coated modular megaprosthesis was implanted. Our non-coated megaprosthesis (NC-MP) historical group included 29 patients. Both groups had similar demographic characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences in infection control rate (80% vs. 82.8%, p = 0.47) or implant survivorship (90% vs. 89.65%, p = 1) after a mean follow-up for SC-MP of 46.43 months, and 48 months for the non-coated MP group. In relapsed cases, there were no differences in infection eradication after DAIR (66% SC-MP vs. 60% NC-MP success rate, p = 1). During the follow-up we observed one case of skin argyria without further repercussion.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to confirm our initial hypothesis that use of silver-coated implants in end-stage PJI scenarios may be associated with better outcomes in terms of infection control or implant survivorship.

Optimal reimplantation timing in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: an observative cohort study in Asian population

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has not been established and varies from a few weeks to several months. The aim of this study was to assess the commendable time between implant removal and reimplantation in patients who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 361 patients who were treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee chronic PJI at our institution between January 2000 and December 2018. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, surgical variables, microbiology data, and time to reimplantation were recorded. All patients were followed for a minimum of one year. Treatment failure was defined by Delphi criteria. Logistic regression analyses were used to calculate survival rates and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of treatment failure.

RESULTS

In final analysis, 27 (7.5%) had treatment failure. Factors related to treatment failure including interim spacer exchange (OR, 3.13; confidence interval (CI), 1.04-9.09, p = 0.036), higher ESR level at reimplantation (OR, 1.85; CI, 1.05-3.57; p = 0.04), and time to reimplantation (OR, 1.00; CI, 1.003-1.005, p = 0.04). Performing revision arthroplasty surgery from 16 to 20 weeks had highest successful rate. The reimplantation over 24 weeks had a lower successful rate. However, no statistical significance in comparing each interval group.

CONCLUSION

Our study emphasized the importance of timely reimplantation in achieving successful outcomes. Factors such as ESR levels, spacer exchange, and the duration of time to reimplantation influenced the likelihood of treatment failure in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee PJI.

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.

Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Background

Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA?

Methods

Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis).

Results

Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions).

Conclusion

The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

Background

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections.

Methods

We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment.

Results

After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I² = 45.5 %]).

Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies.

Conclusion

Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.

One-stage versus two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Infection complicating total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has serious implications. Traditionally the debate on whether one- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the optimum management of infected TKA has favoured two-stage procedures; however, a paradigm shift in opinion is emerging. This study aimed to establish whether current evidence supports one-stage revision for managing infected TKA based on reinfection rates and functional outcomes post-surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed and CENTRAL databases were reviewed for studies that compared one- and two-stage exchange arthroplasty TKA in more than ten patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

From an initial sample of 796, five cohort studies with a total of 231 patients (46 single-stage/185 two-stage; median patient age 66 years, range 61-71 years) met inclusion criteria. Overall, there were no significant differences in risk of reinfection following one- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty (OR -0.06, 95 % confidence interval -0.13, 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that in studies published since 2000, one-stage procedures have a significantly lower reinfection rate. One study investigated functional outcomes and reported that one-stage surgery was associated with superior functional outcomes. Scarcity of data, inconsistent study designs, surgical technique and antibiotic regime disparities limit recommendations that can be made.

CONCLUSION

Recent studies suggest one-stage exchange arthroplasty may provide superior outcomes, including lower reinfection rates and superior function, in select patients. Clinically, for some patients, one-stage exchange arthroplasty may represent optimum treatment; however, patient selection criteria and key components of surgical and post-operative anti-microbial management remain to be defined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.