[Therapy of bacterial knee joint infection by radical synovectomy and implantation of a cemented stabilized knee joint endoprosthesis]

One-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip

Exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard of treatment of established prosthetic joint infection. This can be achieved using a one or two stage approach. The ENDO-Klinik, in Hamburg, has pioneered the one-stage technique since 1970 utilising antibiotic loaded acrylic cement (ALAC). This editorial discusses the relevant literature and describes the indications and surgical technique employed by the ENDO-Klinik Hamburg.

Surgical therapy of extensive knee joint empyema: mid-term results after two-stage versus one-stage procedures

PURPOSE

Untreated knee joint empyema leads to rapid destruction of the joint and, thus far, has proven challenging to treat. This study presents data obtained after one- versus two-stage surgical approaches. Specifically, clinical outcome, complication rate, re-infection rate, duration of operation, and hospital stay are reported.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2010, 67 patients with extensive knee joint empyema underwent surgical therapy. Patients underwent either a two-stage surgical approach with open joint treatment for 7-10 days or a one-stage procedure with primary closure of the knee joint after radical debridement.

RESULTS

The two-stage procedure was performed on 36 patients, whereas the one-stage procedure was performed on 31 patients. Infection duration prior to the index procedure ranged from 3 days to 55 months (two-stage: ~5 months, one-stage: ~2.4 months). The groups did not differ significantly in demographic group characteristics. Hospital stay and duration of operation were significantly (p < 0.01) reduced in the one-stage group compared to the two-stage group (31.1 ± 10.6 vs. 23.4 ± 14.4 days and 105 ± 32 vs. 68 ± 18 min, respectively). Functional outcome improved in both groups from the pre- to post-operative period, but did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

The one-stage open surgical approach produced similar results to the two-stage approach in the treatment of extensive knee joint empyemas. However, by waiving the open joint treatment concept, duration of hospital stay and operation time could be significantly reduced.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

One-stage exchange: it all began here

Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time. In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected, and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to 14 days.

One stage conversion of an infected fused knee to total knee replacement - a surgical challenge

Background and Purpose:

Two-stage revision arthroplasty is a common technique for the treatment of infected total knee replacement. Few reports have addressed the conversion of a fused knee into a total knee replacement. However, there is no case reported of converting an infected fused knee into a hinge knee using a one-stage procedure.

Methods:

We report on a 51-year old male patient with an infected fused knee after multiple surgeries.

Results and Interpretation:

A one-stage conversion of septic fused knee into total knee arthroplasty by a rotational hinge prosthesis was performed. The case highlights that with profound preoperative assessment, meticulous surgical technique, combined antibiotic treatment and the right implant, one-stage revision in a surgical challenge may have a role as a treatment option with good functional outcome.

Peri-prosthetic hip infections: in favour of one-stage

Although it does offer certain obvious advantages, the one-staged revision approach in infected THA remains rare in the field of orthopaedics. Besides the reduced number of surgical interventions for patients, it is associated with a decreased inpatient hospital stay and quicker mobilisation. Furthermore, it might be the more cost-effective approach and enables a reduced duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics, usually less than 14 days in our setting. Technically speaking, the presence of a positive culture of a pre-operative aspiration and respective antibiogram are mandatory requirements. A general cemented implant fixation using topical antibiotics is the treatment of choice for single-staged procedures. The key to surgical success is based on the well-defined and detailed intra-hospital infrastructure, including a meticulous pre-operative hip aspiration regime, pre-operative planning and an aggressive intra-operative surgical approach.

Direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction with tumour prosthesis for periprosthetic knee infection associated with segmental bone defects

Revision knee arthroplasty for infection poses a treatment challenge. The presence of massive osteolysis limits the treatment options in this cohort. Controversy exists in the management of these patients. Direct exchange arthroplasty has provided good results in the presence of infection, but whether this is appropriate in the presence of massive bone defects associated with the infection is undetermined. We present our experience in revision knee arthroplasty for infection associated with massive bone defects. The aim of the study is to present the preliminary results of a direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction with tumour prosthesis for periprosthetic infection associated with segmental bone defects. This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data, involving six patients with periprosthetic infection and massive bone defects treated by direct exchange tumour prostheses between 2003 and 2007 (four distal femoral replacements and two total femoral replacements). The mean age and follow-up were 74.2 (±5.2) years and 32.5 (±8.2) months respectively. Each patient had an infected revised knee arthroplasty at the time of referral to our institution. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causal organism. The mean duration of antibiotics was 6 weeks intravenous therapy followed by 3.5 months oral. The recurrences of infection, pain or immobility were outcome criteria considered failures. Our success rate was 80%. Salvage of infected revised knee arthroplasty by direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction has provided an effective means of pain relief, joint stability and improved mobility in our cohort. It reduces morbidity through earlier mobilisation and avoids a second major operation.

[Results of reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty: 107 cases]

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to assess the results of reimplantations of total knee arthroplasties complicated by infection. Outcome was assessed in terms of eradicated infection and function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective multicentric study included 107 cases of infected total knee arthroplasties treated by changing the implants. Seventy-seven patients had a two-stage revision and thirty had a one-stage procedure. Patients were reviewed with a minimal 2-year and an average 52-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Revision arthroplasty (one- or two-stage) eradicated infection in two out of three patients. With a two-year follow-up, revision arthroplasty was successful in 77% of patients without any sepsis risk factor, in 65% of patients with one risk factor and in 33% of patients with at least two risk factors. After reimplantation for total knee arthroplasty infection, overall function outcome was good (KS knee score: 74.8 after two-stage revision and 75.5 after one-stage revision, NS). After two-stage procedures, the knee outcome was excellent in one-third of patients, good in another third and fair or poor in the final third. After one-stage reimplantation, 40% of the knees had an excellent outcome, 30% a good outcome and 30% a fair or poor outcome. Regarding functional outcome, overall results were fair (KS function score 62.5 for one-stage and two-stage revisions). Functional outcome was fair or poor in 42% of patients with a two-stage procedure and in 55% of patients with a one-stage revision (NS).

DISCUSSION

Our study was unable to disclose any difference between one-stage and two-stage revision for eradicating infection. Unfavorable systemic and local conditions decreased the rate of success after revision total knee arthroplasty for infection. Length of infection before reimplantation, number of surgical procedures and bacterial virulence or resistance were not, in our series, predicting factors for failure of septic revision total knee arthroplasty. No difference was found for the clinical and functional results between one-stage and two-stage procedures. Functional outcome was fair or poor for half of the patients after septic revision total knee arthroplsty. The use of an external device between the two procedures for two-stage revision significantly decreased the functional outcome compared with the use of a spacer. Articulated spacers did not offered any advantage compared with a static spacer for functional outcome.

Primary arthroplasty of infected hips and knees in special cases using antibiotic-loaded bone-cement for fixation

As a consequence of successful 1-stage exchange of infected joint prostheses, we decided to treat bacterial infection of the hip or knee by joint resection, synovectomy, and primary implantation of a hip or stabilized knee prosthesis. Since 1984, we have performed this procedure on 51 hips and 32 knees. All operations were preceded by identification of the causative organism and choice of appropriate antibiotics for addition to the bone-cement. The long-term rate of success corresponds to that of 1-stage exchange of infected prostheses. The different anatomic conditions at the hip and knee have to be taken into consideration. This treatment is restricted to special cases and should be performed only in specialized clinics with competent assistance from a bacteriologist.