Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange

Use of 1.5-Stage Functional Articulating Hip Spacers for Two-Stage Treatment of Hip Infection

BACKGROUND

A two-stage treatment is commonly used for chronic hip infections. This study compared the clinical efficacy and complications associated with 1.5-stage functional articulating hip spacers (FAHS) and handmade spacers utilized during two-stage treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 50 patients who had hip infections, of which 41 were periprosthetic joint infections, 3 were internal fixation infections, and 6 had septic arthritis. They were divided into two groups according to the spacer type: 23 patients treated with handmade spacers comprising 1 to 2 Kirschner wires as an endoskeleton (group A) and 27 patients treated with 1.5-stage FAHS comprising a cemented femoral stem, metal femoral head, and polyethylene acetabular liner or cemented acetabular cup (group B). Clinical characteristics, surgical data, infection control rate, spacer complications, modified Harris hip, visual analog scale, and 36-item short-form physical functioning scale scores were compared between the groups. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after the last surgical procedure.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the infection eradication rate between the two groups (100 versus 96.30%, P = 1.0). The incidence of mechanical complications, especially spacer fracture, was significantly lower in group B than in group A (P = .044). Hip function and quality of life were significantly better in group B during the interim period. Group B patients had a longer interval time (median 7.40 versus 4.30 months, P = .004) and a lower reimplantation rate than group A patients (42.31 versus 82.61%, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5-stage FAHS surgical technique is feasible for the treatment of hip infection, with a lower mechanical complication rate, better hip function, and better quality of life during the interim period compared to that of handmade spacers. The 1.5-stage FAHS with maintained function could delay or negate the need for second-stage revision.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Hip Infection: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the functional outcomes, postoperative reinfection rates, and complication rates in patients undergoing one-stage versus two-stage surgical revision for periprosthetic hip infection.

METHODS

The study population included adult patients who had undergone revision hip arthroplasty. Comparative studies have compared two-stage and one-stage revision strategies. Searches were conducted using the major databases. Review Manager software was used to estimate the effects. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies including 2,502 hips were included. The success rate did not show significant differences between the groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 3.37). No difference was noted in reinfection (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56-1.19). Life quality per Harris Hip Score was higher for one-stage revision strategies (mean difference [MD] 9.00, 95% CI 2.23-15.78). No differences were noted in mortality, aseptic loosening, or revision rates. Age (MD 2.32, 95% CI 1.34-3.29) and body mass index (BMI) (MD 1.88, 95% CI 0.38-3.38) were lower in the two-stage group. Sinus tract presence was higher in the one-stage group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05-1.95). Paprosky I acetabulum was higher in the one-stage group, and Paprosky III was higher in the two-stage group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results did not demonstrate notable clinical differences between one-stage and two-stage hip arthroplasties, regardless of the treated microorganism. However, the quality of life may be somewhat better in the one-stage group. Age, body mass index, and Paprosky classification are factors that influence procedure selection.

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.

Utilizing an antibiotic-eluting articulated cemented spacer in the two-stage management of infected total hip arthroplasty: a technical note

Two-stage revision is generally preferred to eradicate chronic periprosthetic infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of its good infection control and promising results. During two-stage revision, a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer was initially used for the local delivery of antibiotics, thereby reducing the risk of infection recurrence. Many researchers have reported various techniques for fabricating cemented spacers; however, there is no established standard technique. We share our cost-effective and easily reproducible technique for creating an articulated cemented spacer for managing infected THA.

Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review

Prosthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.

Clinical Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroplasty due to Prosthetic Joint Infection-A Single-Center Study of 369 Hips at a High-Volume Center With a Minimum of One Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) treatment decisions are traditionally based on treatment algorithms. There is, however, a lack of evidence to support the choice of these treatment algorithms. Therefore, we aimed to assess the one-year survival after PJI revision and compared different surgical strategies in a single-center setting.

METHODS

Revisions of the hip due to PJI performed at our institution between January 2008 and September 2021 with at least one-year of follow-up were identified. In total, 134 debridement, antibiotics, and implant retentions (DAIRs), 114 one-stage revisions, and 121 two-stage revisions were performed. Infections were classified as early, acute hematogenous, and chronic. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and cumulative incidence function. Predictors of outcomes were examined with Fine-Gray regressions and Cox proportional hazards regressions. Subdistribution hazard ratios and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

At one-year follow-up, 26.6% (CI 22.2 to 31.2%) of the patients had undergone reoperation and 7.9% (CI 5.4 to 10.9%) had died. The risk for reoperation was highest after DAIR (36.6%, CI 28.5 to 44.7%) and lowest after one-stage revision (20.2%, CI 13.4 to 28%). Within the early infections, the one-stage revision almost halved the risk of reoperation (HR 0.51, CI 0.31 to 0.84) with no added mortality risk (HR 1.05, CI 0.5 to 2.2), when compared to DAIR.

CONCLUSION

By utilizing 1-stage revision over DAIR in early infections, it might be possible to improve the prognosis by decreasing the risk of reoperation without increasing mortality. However, as the patient selection is undeniably difficult, more research is warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Drain fluid cultures can rule in but cannot rule out infection persistence after surgical treatment of periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common reason for implant failure in arthroplasty. Surgical therapy is essential but there is no standardized guideline to determine infection eradication in multiple-step revision surgery. To date, clinical and laboratory inflammation markers and preoperative arthrocentesis are controversial to evaluate the infection status before reimplantation and therefore are often combined. Drain fluid cultures enable a microbiological analysis without need for further invasive procedure after revision surgery. This retrospective study evaluates the diagnostic performance of drain fluid cultures in diagnosing infection persistence according to the MSIS definition of PJI.

METHODS

Drain samples have been taken after every revision surgery for microbiological testing. Afterwards, the results have been assigned to the infection status according to the diagnostic criteria of the MSIS definition of PJI.

RESULTS

1084 revision surgeries in 183 patients have been included, resulting in a total sample size of 1552 drain fluid cultures. Overall sensitivity was 36.0%, specificity was 90.7% and ROC-AUC was 0.63.

CONCLUSION

Due to a high specificity and a low sensitivity drain fluid cultures can rule in but cannot rule out infection persistence in PJI.

Treatment and Outcomes of Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Systematic Review of 225 Cases

BACKGROUND

Fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after a total joint arthroplasty are a rare, yet severe, occurrence not often reported in the literature. Unlike in bacterial PJIs, no clear consensus exists on fungal PJI optimal management.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the PubMed and Embase databases. Manuscripts were assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was applied for quality assessment. Individual demographic, clinical, and treatment information was retrieved from included manuscripts.

RESULTS

Seventy one patients who had a PJI of the hip and 126 of the knee were included. Infection recurrence occurred in 29.6% and 18.3% of patients with hip or knee PJI, respectively. Patients who had knee PJIs recurrence had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). For knee PJIs, infection recurrence was more common in patients with Candida albicans (CA) PJIs (P = .022). Two-stage exchange arthroplasty was the most common procedure in both joints. Multivariate analysis found that CCI ≥ 3 was associated with an 18.5-fold increase in the risk of knee PJI recurrence (Odds ratio [OR] = 18.57). Additional risk factors for recurrence in the knee included CA etiology (OR = 3.56) and C-reactive protein at presentation ≥ 6 (OR = 6.54). Compared to debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, 2-stage procedure was a protective factor for PJI recurrence in the knee (OR = 0.18). No risk factors were found in patients who had hip PJIs.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of fungal PJIs varies widely, but 2-stage revision is the most common. Risk factors for knee fungal PJI recurrence include elevated CCI, infection by CA, and high C-reactive protein at presentation.

Comparison of Surgical Procedures in the Treatment of Hip Periprosthetic Infection

Objective The present study aimed to compare the cure rate recovery time and Merle d'Aubigné-Postel functional (MAPF) score after single-stage surgery (C1T) or two-stage surgery (C2T) to treat prosthetic infections of the hip considering sociodemographic and clinical features of the patients. Materials and Methods The present retrospective study occurred in a single center from 2011 to 2014 with 37 studied cases including 26 treated with C1T and 11 with C2T. We compared the cure rate recovery time and MAPF score in the two groups as well as the sociodemographic and clinical features of the patients. We also considered surgical complications and the most common infectious agents. Results The C1T group had a faster functional recovery than the C2T group but there were no significant differences in the cure rate surgical complications or MAPF score. However C1T group patients were significantly younger which may have influenced the outcomes. Staphylococcus spp. was the most common infectious agent (62%). Conclusion Although C2T appears superior regarding infection cure C1T may be preferable for faster functional recovery. However it is critical to consider individual patient characteristics when choosing treatment. Further research with a larger sample size is required to confirm these results.

Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22-51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing.

RESULTS

78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64-89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18-57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher's exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients.

CONCLUSION

The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Comparison of Static and Articulating Spacers After Periprosthetic Joint Infection

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on whether articulating or static spacers are superior during two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. We aimed to compare surgical time, need for extensile exposure, surgical costs, and treatment success for articulating and static spacers.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 229 periprosthetic joint infections treated with two-stage exchange with a minimum of one-year follow-up. For articulating and static spacers, we compared the need for extensile exposure during reimplantation and treatment failure based on an updated definition. Surgical time and costs at both stages were also compared. Subgroup analysis was performed for total knee and hip arthroplasties.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the surgical time for spacer insertion; however, articulating spacers demonstrated reduced surgical time during reimplantation (181 vs. 234 minutes, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in extensile exposures (odds ratio 2.20, P = 0.081), but treatment failure was more likely for static spacers (odds ratio 2.17, P = 0.009). Overall surgical costs for two-stage exchange were similar between groups (23,782 vs. 23,766, P = 0.495).

CONCLUSION

Articulating spacers demonstrated shorter surgical times and a trend toward decreased extensile exposures during reimplantation. They also had higher treatment success rates and similar surgical costs for overall two-stage exchange.

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.

Early periprosthetic hip joint infection managed by cementless one-stage revision - a case series

Background: Early periprosthetic hip joint infection (PJI) is traditionally treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). However, infection control rates after DAIR-treated periprosthetic hip joint infection do not exceed 77 %. Cementless one-stage revision of chronic PJI by the Cementless One-stage Revision of Infected Hip Arthroplasty (CORIHA) protocol has been evaluated positively with a 91 % success rate. We wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of cementless one-stage revision following the CORIHA protocol for early PJI in elective primary total hip arthroplasty, regarding risk of re-operation with exchange of implants. Methods: We identified 18 patients in our center with early ( ≤ 6 -week postoperative) PJI after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) treated with one-stage cementless revision in the period January 2012-March 2018. Treatment followed the CORIHA protocol. Primary outcome was retention of implants at the most recent follow-up. Patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years. Results: Mean follow-up time was 60 months (39-105). All patients retained their implants, but two required superficial soft tissue debridement due to persistent wound seepage. Conclusion: Cementless one-stage revision appears to be an effective treatment of early PJI after primary THA and at least an equal choice of treatment compared with DAIR. Whether the potential benefit of a lower re-revision rate for postoperative PJI outweighs the increased surgical complexity of the CORIHA procedure needs further evaluation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Staged Revision Surgery for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection of Total Hip Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty. Staged revision surgery is considered effective in eradicating PJI. We aimed to determine the rate of infection resolution after each stage of staged revision surgery (first stage, repeat first stage, second stage, excision arthroplasty, and reimplantation) and to assess functional outcomes and the mortality rate at ten years in a consecutive series of 30 chronic PJI of total hip arthroplasties. Infection resolution was defined as no clinical nor laboratory evidence of infection at 24 months after the last surgery and after a minimum of 12 months following cessation of antimicrobial treatment. Four patients died within 24 months of their final surgery. Nineteen patients, 73% (worst-case analysis (wca) 63%), were infection free after 1 surgery; 22 patients, 85% (wca 73%), were infection free after 2 surgeries; and 26 patients, 100% (wca 87%), were infection free after three and four surgeries. The median Harris Hip Score was 41 prior to first revision surgery and improved to 74 at twelve months and 76 at ten years after the final surgery. Thirteen patients died at a mean of 64 months from first revision, giving a mortality rate of 43% at ten years, which is approximately 25% higher than that of an age-matched general population. The results show that with repeated aggressive surgical treatment, most PJIs of the hip are curable. Ten years after successful treatment of PJI, functional outcomes and pain are improved and maintained compared to before initial surgery, but this must be balanced against the high 10-year mortality. Level of evidence: cohort studies.

What is the appropriate extended duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after two-stage revision for chronic PJI?

Aims

To explore the effect of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

This study involved a retrospective collection of patients who underwent two-stage revision for chronic PJI and continued to use extended antibiotic prophylaxis in two regional medical centres from January 2010 to June 2018. The patients were divided into a short (≤ one month) or a long (> one month) course of treatment based on the duration of antibiotics following stage II reimplantation. The difference in the infection control rate between the two groups was compared, and prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed.

Results

A total of 105 patients with chronic PJI were enrolled: 64 patients in the short course group and 41 patients in the long course group. For 99 of the patients, the infection was under control during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after two-stage revision. For the short course group, the mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after stage II reimplantation was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and the infection control rate was 95.3%; for the long course group these were 45.02 days (SD 15.03) and 92.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection control rates between the two groups (p = 0.676). Cox regression analysis found that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection (p = 0.015) was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence.

Conclusion

After stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI, extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):790–796.

Trend of serum C-reactive protein is associated with treatment outcome of hip Periprosthetic joint infection undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty: a case control study

Background

Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) trends are critical for monitoring patients’ treatment response following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. However, CRP trends are poorly described in the literature. The primary aim of this study was to identify the relationships between PJI treatment outcomes and our proposed CRP trend definitions, parameters, and microbiological data. The secondary aim was to investigate CRP trends after the occurrence of spacer-related complications.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of 74 patients treated with a two-stage exchange protocol for PJI in a tertiary referral joint center between 2014 and 2016. Patients with factors that may affect CRP levels (inflammatory arthritis, concomitant infections, liver and kidney diseases, and intensive care admissions) were excluded. CRP trends were categorized into five types and PJI treatment outcome was defined as “success” or “failure” according to the Delphi criteria.

Results

Treatment was successful in 67 patients and failed in 7 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that type 5 CRP, defined as serum CRP fluctuation without normalization after first stage surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 17.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3–129.7; p = 0.005), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; OR: 14.5; 95% CI: 1.6–131.7; p = 0.018) were associated with treatment failure. Spacer-related complications occurred in 18 patients. Of these, 12 had elevated CRP levels at later follow-up, while six had no elevation in CRP levels.

Conclusions

We found that MRSA infection and type 5 CRP were associated with PJI treatment failure.

Total Femur Antibiotic Spacers: Effective Salvage for Complex Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

A simultaneous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of an ipsilateral hip and knee arthroplasty is a challenging complication of lower extremity reconstructive surgery. We evaluated the use of total femur antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement spacers in the staged treatment of such limb-threatening PJIs.

METHODS

Thirteen patients were treated with a total femur antibiotic spacer. The mean age at the time of spacer placement was 65 years. Nine patients had polymicrobial PJIs. All spacers incorporated vancomycin (3.0 g/40 g PMMA) and gentamicin (3.6 g/40 g PMMA), while 8 also included amphotericin (150 mg/40 g PMMA). Eleven spacers were biarticular. Twelve spacers were implanted through one longitudinal incision, while 8 of 12 reimplantations occurred through 2 smaller, separate hip and knee incisions. Mean follow-up after reimplantation was 3 years.

RESULTS

Twelve (92%) patients underwent reimplantation of a total femur prosthesis at a mean of 26 weeks. One patient died of medical complications 41 days after spacer placement. At latest follow-up, 3 patients had experienced PJI recurrence managed with irrigation and debridement. One required acetabular component revision for instability. All 12 reimplanted patients retained the total femur prosthesis with no amputations. Eleven (91%) were ambulatory, and 7 (58%) remained on suppressive antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Total femur antibiotic spacers are a viable, but technically demanding, limb-salvage option for complex PJIs involving the ipsilateral hip and knee. In the largest series to date, there were no amputations and 75% of reimplanted patients remained infection-free. Radical debridement, antimicrobial diversity, prolonged spacer retention, and limiting recurrent soft tissue violation are potential tenets of success.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Is There a Role for Spacer Exchange in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be one of the most serious complications after hip and knee arthroplasty. The choice of surgical treatment depends on a multitude of factors like chronicity of infection, host factors, and institutional or surgeon experience. Two-stage exchange remains one of the most commonly used technique for chronic PJI in the United States of America. The intended two-stage revision may involve an additional interim procedure where the initial antibiotic cement spacer is removed and a new spacer is inserted. Mostly, the rationale behind spacer exchange is an additional load of local antibiotics before proceeding to reimplantation. There is no conclusive evidence whether a spacer exchange confers additional benefits, yet it delays reimplantation and exposes already fragile patients to the risks and morbidity of an additional surgery.

Two-Stage Primary Arthroplasty of Native Hips and Knees That Had Previously Failed Treatment for Septic Arthritis: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Patients with a history of degenerative joint disease secondary to an acute or remote episode of septic arthritis of the native knee or hip present a unique challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. This study describes our experience with two-stage primary arthroplasty for such patients.

Methods

We reviewed 42 patients with a history of septic arthritis treated with two-stage primary arthroplasty between 2008 and 2018. Patients were evaluated using modified Harris Hip Score, Knee Society Score (KSS), and KSS functional component (KSSF). Paired t-tests were used to compare changes for continuous variables within cohorts. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were constructed to determine predictors of outcomes and complications.

Results

At a mean of 3.3-year follow-up, there were 14 (33.3%) complications and the infection cure rate was 95.2%. On average, patients improved in the modified Harris Hip Score (42.9 ± 11.8 vs 83.3 ± 11.1, P < .001), KSS (35.9 ± 16.9 vs 80.1 ± 16.6, P < .001), KSSF (38.0 ± 15.1 vs 71.5 ± 24.0, P < .001), knee flexion (90.9 ± 14.9 vs 100.5 ± 17.1), and hip flexion (73.8 ± 21.2 vs 102.1 ± 11.8, P < .001). Age (β: -0.78, P = .004) was independently associated with lower Harris Hip Score in the hip cohort. There were no independent predictors of the KSS or KSSF. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (odds ratio: 1.07, P = .043) and C-reactive protein (odds ratio: 1.43, P = .018) at stage 2 were independently associated with a higher likelihood of complications at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients with a history of native septic arthritis of the hip and knee, and secondary end-stage degenerative joint disease, showed significant postoperative improvements and a high rate of complications after two-stage primary total joint arthroplasty. Despite improvements, some patients may necessitate a third operation because of the incidence of reinfection and spacer exchange. This information should be used to counsel patients who present with this challenging clinical scenario.

The Effect of Vancomycin on the Viability and Osteogenic Potential of Bone-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Traditionally, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is treated with vancomycin, administrated intravenously or applied directly onto infected tissue. The effect of direct (as opposed to systemic) vancomycin treatment on bone formation and remodelling is largely unknown. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of vancomycin was determined by adding 200 μL of different concentrations (1-20 μg/mL) to actively growing cultures of S. aureus Xen 31 (methicillin-resistant) and S. aureus Xen 36 (methicillin-sensitive), respectively, and recording changes in optical density over 24 h. Bone marrow-derived and proximal femur-derived mesenchymal stem cells (bmMSCs and pfMSCs) from rat femora were exposed to 1 × MIC (5 μg/mL) and 4 × MIC (20 μg/mL) of vancomycin for 7 days. Cell viability was determined by staining with crystal violet and MTT (3-(4,5- di methylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide), respectively, and osteogenic differentiation by staining with Alizarin Red S. Vancomycin had no effect on the viability of bmMSCs and pfMSCs, even at high levels (20 μg/mL). The osteogenic differentiation of pfMSCs was partially inhibited, while osteogenesis in bmMSCs was not severely affected. The direct application of vancomycin to infected bone tissue, even at excessive levels, may preserve the viability of resident MSC populations.

No differences in short-term outcomes between patients with anaerobic and aerobic culture positive prosthetic joint infection

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastation complication of total joint arthroplasty that can result in poor patient outcomes. Anaerobic organisms make up a small proportion of PJI cases and are much less studied. Studies comparing patient outcomes in anaerobic PJI to outcomes in aerobic PJI are sparse. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical presentation, duration of antibiotics, type of treatment provided, and final outcome between PJI patients with anaerobic infection and those with aerobic infection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 26 patients who underwent treatment for PJI at a tertiary referral center. Eight patients with anaerobic PJI were compared to 18 patients with aerobic PJI in terms of clinical presentation, laboratory values, treatment duration, and functional outcome. Statistical analysis was performed on continuous variables of interest.

RESULTS

The results of our study showed that there are no differences in short term clinical outcomes between PJI patients with cultures positive for anaerobic vs aerobic organisms (38.9% vs 50% successfully treated). Inflammatory markers were higher in the aerobic group and patients in the anaerobic group tended to have fewer medical comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

PJI caused by anaerobic organisms results in poor patient outcomes similar to infection caused by aerobic organisms. There are some differences in clinical presentation between the two groups that can be explained by the fact that anaerobic organisms are of low virulence and result in indolent infections causing longstanding symptoms.

Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 15-Year, Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total hip arthroplasty. The purposes of this study were to determine risk factors for PJI after primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using a Canadian population-based database collected over 15 years and to determine the incidence of PJI, the time to PJI following primary total hip arthroplasty, and whether the PJI rate had changed over 15 years.

METHODS

We performed a population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario. We included all primary total hip arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis in patients who were ≥55 years of age. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the effect of surgical and patient factors on the risk of developing PJI. We calculated 1, 2, 5, and 10-year PJI rates. We used the Cochran-Armitage test to assess the evidence of trends in PJI rates over time.

RESULTS

A total of 100,674 patients who were ≥55 years of age underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. The cumulative incidence for PJI at 15 years was 1.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38% to 1.50%). Risk factors associated with the development of PJI include male sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.51]), type-2 diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.31 to 1.70]), and being discharged to convalescent care (HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.77]). Sixty-two percent of PJI cases occurred within 2 years after the surgical procedure and 98% occurred within 10 years. The rate of PJI following primary total hip arthroplasty did not change over the 15 years of our study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of developing PJI following primary total hip arthroplasty did not change in 15 years, despite improvements in other arthroplasty outcomes. Male sex, type-2 diabetes mellitus, and discharge to convalescent care were associated with an increased risk of PJI. The surgical approach, income quintile, and use of bone-grafting or cement were not significantly associated with increased risk of infection in our cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

One-Stage Arthroplasty or Revision for Seronegative Infections in Hip and Knee

Objective

To assess the safety and effectiveness of one‐stage total joint arthroplasty (TJA) or revision for seronegative infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

This retrospective study included a total of 495 patients who had undergone one‐stage total joint (hip or knee) arthroplasty or revision with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis secondary to sepsis, osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) secondary to internal fixation surgery of the hip joint, and one‐stage revision for prosthesis loosening after THA or TKA from January 2012 to December 2016. Bacterial cultures were taken from all patients (from joint fluid or articular cavity fluid and four to six different parts of soft tissues) during the operation. If the cultures were positive, patients received antibiotic treatment. Microbiology results from surgical samples, clinical evaluations, SF‐12 score (physical component summary [PCS] and mental component summary [MCS]), Harris hip score (HHS) or Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and patients' satisfaction was recorded at every follow‐up session.

Results

A total of 24 patients had a positive result for bacterial culture (4.85%). The bacterial culture results showed that there were 19 cases (79.16%) of gram‐positive cocci (Staphylococcus aureus), 4 cases (16.67%) of gram‐negative bacilli, and 1 case (4.17%) of fungi. For at least 24 months (mean 35 months) follow‐up, no reinfection was discovered. The mean HHS or HSS score improved significantly from 36.29 points preoperatively to 84.21 points postoperatively (P < 0.001). The mean PCS score improved from 10.15 preoperatively to 20.34 postoperatively, and the mean MCS from 13.22 preoperatively to 21.76 postoperatively, with significant differences. Most of the patients were satisfied.

Conclusion

One‐stage arthroplasty or revision with exhaustive debridement, adequate dosage, and duration of sensitive antibiotics is safe and effective for patients who have seronegative infection of hip or knee joints.

Linezolid in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is increasingly common and is sometimes treated with off-label use of linezolid. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with PJI caused by CoNS treated with surgical intervention and orally administrated linezolid during the period 1995-2014 (n = 28). Clinical outcomes and adverse events related to linezolid administration were evaluated. Mean time to follow-up was 4.3 years (range: 0.2-12). Results: Twenty-two of 28 patients were infection-free at follow-up. No CoNS strain was resistant to vancomycin, but 16 of 28 were resistant to rifampicin, 23 of 28 to clindamycin and 20 of 27 to quinolones. The mean duration of linezolid treatment was 4.2 weeks (range: 1-12). Eleven of 28 patients had an adverse event related to the antimicrobial treatment, and four had to discontinue linezolid, but all adverse events were reversible within 2 months after discontinuation. Conclusions: Oral linezolid administration combined with adequate surgical treatment may be useful for the treatment of PJIs caused by CoNS.

Ten-Year Results Following One-Stage Septic Hip Exchange in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Although 2-stage revision is still considered the gold standard for surgical management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), 1-stage revision has been reported to be as effective. Long-term reports for 1-stage revision in hip PJIs are lacking.

METHODS

We reviewed our 10-11 years of results of 85 patients who underwent 1-stage exchange of the hip with an antibiotic-loaded bone cemented prosthesis due to PJI to determine the following: (1) What is the infection-free survival? (2) What is the overall survival? and (3) What are the long-term clinical outcomes? All 1-stage revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for infection between January 2006 and December 2007, with a minimum 10-year follow-up (range 10-11), were included in this retrospective cohort. Patients from another country or patients who were unable to participate were excluded. Eighty-five patients with a hip PJI were available at the last follow-up. Thirty-seven patients died during the 10-year study. Harris Hip Scores were recorded before the surgery and at last follow-up. Failures are reported as infection-related or aseptic.

RESULTS

The 10-year infection-free survival was 94% and the surgery-free survival was 75.9%. The Harris Hip Scores improved from 43 (range 3-91) to 75 (range 10-91) (P < .001). The main indication for re-revision after 1-stage exchange was instability (10/20 patients).

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange of the hip for PJI is a reliable treatment option with high rate of infection control and long-lasting favorable outcomes.

Effect of Ultrasound Frequency and Treatment Duration on Antibiotic Elution from Polymethylmethacrylate Bone Cement

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ultrasound frequency and treatment duration on antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) antibiotic elution rates and mechanical strength.

METHODS

Two batches of PMMA were prepared: one with five grams of vancomycin powder and one without. Each batch was divided into two frequency groups: kHz and MHz. Each frequency group was divided into two duration groups: two minutes and ten minutes. Elution samples were measured daily using flow injection analysis. After one week of elution, ultrasound treatments were done daily until each group's average concentration fell below those of non-ultrasound control groups. After elution testing, compression testing determined mechanical properties. Paired t-tests were used to compare daily elution amounts to baseline values. Univariate ANOVAs were used to test for effects of both frequency and treatment duration on antibiotic elution amounts and on mechanical properties.

RESULTS

All ultrasound treatments resulted in significant increases in antibiotic elution. Frequency and duration had significant effects of increasing antibiotic elution (p < 0.001). The kHz group produced significantly greater antibiotic elution than the MHz group (p < 0.001). The 10-minute duration produced significantly greater antibiotic elution than the two-minute duration (both p < 0.001). Frequency and duration did not have significant effects on yield stress (p = 0.841 and p = 0.179, respectively). Frequency had a significant effect (p = 0.024) on modulus, but duration did not (p = 0.136).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound frequency and treatment duration significantly affect antibiotic elution from PMMA which may be helpful for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections during revision arthroplasty.

Towards functional restoration for persons with limb amputation: A dual-stage implementation of regenerative agonist-antagonist myoneural interfaces

While amputation has traditionally been viewed as a failure of therapy, recent developments in amputation surgery and neural interfacing demonstrate improved functionality and bidirectional communication with prosthetic devices. The agonist antagonist myoneural interface (AMI) is one such bi-directional neural communication model comprised of two muscles, an agonist and an antagonist, surgically connected in series within the amputated residuum such that contraction of one muscle stretches the other. By preserving agonist-antagonist muscle dynamics, the AMI allows proprioceptive signals from mechanoreceptors within both muscles to be communicated to the central nervous system. Preliminary human evidence suggests that AMIs have the capacity to provide high fidelity control of a prosthetic device, force feedback, and natural proprioception. However, AMIs have been implemented only in planned amputations and require healthy distal tissues, whereas the majority of amputations occur in patients who do not have healthy distal tissues. Through the use of a dual-stage surgical procedure which leverages existent tissues, this study proposes a revision model for implementation of the AMI in patients who are undergoing traumatic amputation or have already undergone a standard amputation. This paper validates the resulting AMI's physiology, revealing robust viability and mechanical and electrophysiological function. We demonstrate the presence of H-waves in regenerative grafts, indicating the incorporation of the AMI into physiological reflexive loops.

Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection

Aims

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI.

Material and Methods

A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions.

Results

The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions.

Conclusion

We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus.

Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Specific Articulating Antibiotic Spacer Design: Reliable Periprosthetic Joint Infection Eradication and Functional Improvement

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision utilizing spacers loaded with high-dose antibiotic cement prior to reimplantation remains the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) in North America, but there is a paucity of data on mid-term outcomes. We sought to analyze the survivorship free of infection, clinical outcomes, and complications of a specific articulating spacer utilized during 2-stage revision.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-five hips (131 patients) undergoing a 2-stage revision THA for PJI with a specific articulating antibiotic spacer design from 2005 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Infections were classified according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Mean age at resection was 65 years and mean follow-up was 5 years (rang, 2-10).

RESULTS

Survivorship free of any infection after reimplantation was 92% and 88% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Patients with a host-extremity grade of C3 compared to all patients with a host grade of A [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1, P = .05] were significant risk factors for poorer infection-free survivorship after reimplantation. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 58 to a mean of 71 in the spacer phase (P = .002) and a mean of 81 post-reimplantation (P = .001). Fourteen (10%) patients dislocated after reimplantation, 9 (7%) of which required re-revision. Trochanteric deficiency (HR 19, P < .0001), dislocation of the articulating spacer prior to reimplantation [which occurred in 7 (5%) patients, 5 of whom subsequently dislocated the definitive implant] (HR 16, P < .0001), and female gender (HR 5, P = .002) were significant risk factors for post-reimplantation dislocation.

CONCLUSION

Insertion of an articulating antibiotic spacer during a 2-stage revision THA for PJI demonstrates reliable infection eradication and improvement in clinical function, including the spacer phase. Patients with trochanteric deficiency and an articulating spacer dislocation are at high risk of post-reimplantation dislocation; judicial use of a dual-mobility or constrained device should be considered in these patients.

One-stage exchange with antibacterial hydrogel coated implants provides similar results to two-stage revision, without the coating, for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection

PURPOSE

Aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that a one-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, provides similar infection recurrence rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

In this two-center case-control, study, 22 patients, treated with a one-stage procedure, using implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel [defensive antibacterial coating (DAC)], were compared with 22 retrospective matched controls, treated with a two-stage revision procedure, without the coating.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 29.3 ± 5.0 months, two patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to three patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. Clinical scores were similar between groups, while average hospital stay and antibiotic treatment duration were significantly reduced after one-stage, compared to two-stage (18.9 ± 2.9 versus 35.8 ± 3.4 and 23.5 ± 3.3 versus 53.7 ± 5.6 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although in a relatively limited series of patients, our data shows similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with DAC-coated implants, compared to two-stage revision without coating, with reduced overall hospitalization time and antibiotic treatment duration. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era of increasing numbers of hip and knee replacements, strategies to manage prosthetic joint infection (PJI) that are effective at infection control with good patient-reported outcomes and cost containment for health systems are needed. Interest in single-stage exchange for PJI is rising and we assess evidence from the last 5 years related to this treatment strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only five series for total knee replacement and ten series for total hip replacement have been reported in the last five years. More review articles and opinion pieces have been written. Reinfection rates in these recent studies range from 0 to 65%, but a meta-analysis and systematic review of all studies showed a reinfection rate of 7.6% (95% CI 3.4-13.1) and 8.8% (95% CI 7.2-10.6) for single-stage and two-stage revisions respectively. There is emerging evidence to support single-stage revision in the setting of significant bony deficiency and atypical PJIs such as fungal infections. Prospective randomised studies are recruiting and are necessary to guide the direction of single-stage revision selection criteria. The onus of surgical excellence in mechanical removal of implants, necrotic tissue, and biofilms lies with the arthroplasty surgeon and must remain the cornerstone of treatment. Single-stage revision may be considered the first-line treatment for all PJIs unless the organism is unknown, the patient is systemically septic, or there is a poor tissue envelope.

Laboratory Tests for Diagnosis of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection Can Help Predict Outcomes of Two-Stage Exchange

BACKGROUND

Although 2-stage exchange arthroplasty is the most effective treatment among available strategies for managing chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), rates of its success vary greatly. The purpose of our study was to examine whether objective measurements collected at the time of the diagnosis of PJI could be used to identify patients at risk of failure of 2-stage exchange.

METHODS

We identified 205 patients across 4 institutions who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of PJI following total hip or total knee arthroplasty. Demographic, surgical, and laboratory data were obtained for each patient from their medical chart. Laboratory values included serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level, synovial fluid white blood-cell (WBC) count and neutrophil percentage, synovial fluid and/or tissue culture, and Gram stain. Patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrent infection were considered to have failed the 2-stage procedure. Demographic, surgical, and laboratory variables were compared between the 2 groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine threshold cutoffs for significant laboratory values. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 2-stage exchange was unsuccessful for 27.3% of the patients. Preoperative serum ESR (p = 0.035) and synovial fluid WBC count (p = 0.008) and neutrophil percentage (p = 0.041) were greater in patients with recurrent infection. ROC curve analysis revealed a threshold of >60,000 cells/μL for synovial fluid WBC count, >92% for synovial fluid WBC neutrophil percentage, and >99 mm/hr for serum ESR. Failure of 2-stage exchange was 2.5 times more likely for patients with an elevated preoperative synovial fluid WBC count, 2.0 times more likely for those with an elevated preoperative synovial fluid WBC neutrophil percentage, and 1.8 times more likely for those with an elevated preoperative serum ESR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that a greater number of patients in whom 2-stage exchange arthroplasty ultimately failed had a preoperative synovial fluid WBC count of >60,000 cells/μL, a synovial fluid WBC neutrophil percentage of >92%, or a serum ESR of >99 mm/hr. Patients with elevated laboratory values had 1.8 to 2.5 times the risk of treatment failure. These data can serve as a clinical guideline to identify patients most at risk for failure of 2-stage exchange.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Failed Two-Stage Exchange: Factors Leading to Unachievable Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Multiple Revision Surgeries

BACKGROUND

Information about the outcome after failed 2-stage exchange is scarce. The aim of this study is to determine possible influencing factors leading to multiple revisions, resulting in a failed endoprosthetic joint reconstruction.

METHODS

Medical records of patients (15 hip and 29 knee joints) who had undergone additional revision surgeries due to a failed 2-stage exchange were reviewed concerning infection parameters, number and type of procedure(s), current state of the revised joint, and whether failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction had occurred.

RESULTS

Endoprosthetic reconstruction was achieved in 52.3% (n = 23) of the patients. About 36.4% (n = 16) of patients successfully reached the second stage of the initial 2-stage exchange. Half of the patients (n = 22) had to undergo spacer exchange in the initial interstage period. Five or more revision surgeries significantly increased the odds of failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction compared to patients with <5 revision surgeries (odds ratio 4.98, 95% confidence interval 1.34-18.4, P = .016). Patients with initial culture-negative revision surgery showed no significant differences in the odds of failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.20-2.43, P = .567).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing re-revision surgery due to a failed 2-stage exchange are very likely to ultimately experience a failed endoprosthetic reconstruction. The identification of the underlying pathogen does not influence the likelihood of a better outcome in terms of a successful endoprosthetic reconstruction.

The influence of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers on the risk of reinfection after septic two-stage hip revision surgery

Purpose

The aim of this study was the evaluation of possible outcome differences of patients undergoing two-stage hip exchange with antibiotic-loaded spacers, compared to patients without an interim spacer implantation.

Methods

We evaluated 46 patients undergoing two-stage hip revision surgery. Twenty-five patients received an interim ALS. Additional to a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, a competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence function for re-revisions due to infection accounting for death as a competing event.

Results

Nine patients (seven non-ALS vs. two ALS) had to undergo re-revision surgery due to reinfection of the hip joint. The non-ALS group showed a risk of re-revision of 19% (95% CI 5–38%) at 12 and 24 months and 30% (95% CI 12–51%) at 36 months. The group with ALS implantation displayed a 0% risk of re-revision surgery in the first 36 months. The Gray test revealed a significant difference in the cumulative incidence between both observed groups (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that ALS implantation significantly reduces the risk of reinfection after two-stage hip revision surgery.

Superficial Vancomycin Coating of Bone Cement in Orthopedic Revision Surgery: A Safe Technique to Enhance Local Antibiotic Concentrations

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotic-loaded cement has become a well-accepted method to develop high local antibiotic concentrations in revision surgery of infected arthroplasty. A new surgical technique has been established to further increase the local antibiotic concentration and thereby minimizes the risk of reinfection. Our study aim was to investigate the safety of additional superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) by analyzing postoperative joint and serum vancomycin concentrations, as well as the creatinine levels of patients with orthopedic revision surgery.

METHODS

A longitudinal case series was performed by reviewing collected data of patients who were treated by SVC during revision surgery (1- or 2-stage exchange) because of prosthetic joint infections. Vancomycin levels were obtained, local from drains and systemic from blood samples, on postoperative days 1 to 5. Furthermore, preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine levels were analyzed.

RESULTS

Highest median local vancomycin levels were documented on postoperative day 1 with 546.8 μg/mL (range, 44.4-1485 μg/mL) in the reimplantation group and 408.7 μg/mL (range, 24.7-1650 μg/mL) in the spacer group. Median serum vancomycin level was 4.4 μg/mL (range, <2.0-11.7 μg/mL) on the first postoperative day in the reimplantation group and <2.0 μg/mL (range, <2.0-3.9 μg/mL) in the spacer group, and lower than 2.0 μg/mL (range, <2.0-7.5 μg/mL) from postoperative day 2 to 5 in both groups. Neither an anaphylactic reaction nor other side effects to SVC were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our data showed that SVC of bone cement is an effective technique to enhance local concentrations of vancomycin without leading to systemic side effects.

Cement-within-cement revision of infected total hip replacement; disappointing results in 10 retrospective cases

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective analysis evaluates 10 patients with a late infection of a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) treated with two-stage revision with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle.

METHODS

Clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes were evaluated. The average age at the first-stage revision procedure was 61.5 years (range 38-80 y). The mean follow-up period was 26 months (range 5-54 m).

RESULTS

Successful eradication of the primary microorganism was achieved in 2 patients. These patients had negative cultures at second stage and did not show any signs of infection during follow-up.The other 8 patients were considered as failures. In 3 patients, the femoral cement mantle was removed after the first stage due to recurrent infection in Girdlestone situation. In 2 patients, cultures showed the same micro-organism at first and second stage, treated with 3 months of antibiotics after second stage. 2 patients showed negative cultures at second stage but still had recurrent infection afterwards. These where treated with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) and 3 months of antibiotics. 1 patient was treated with suppressive antibiotics for persistent prosthetic joint infection after second stage, despite DAIR and therapeutic antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, results of two-stage revision with retention of femoral cement mantle are disappointing in treatment of infected THA. Therefore, more research is required to determine which patients are appropriate for cement-within-cement revision.

Single-stage revision for periprosthetic hip infection using antibiotic loaded impaction graft

BACKGROUND

Staged revision for periprosthetic infection of the hip is an accepted and widely used technique by many surgeons. However, single-stage exchange of the hip prosthesis remains an attractive option to others because of the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter treatment time and hospital stay in addition to the reduced cost of treatment.

HYPOTHESIS

Single-stage revision for periprosthetic hip infection can achieve excellent results if a specific protocol for patients' selection and management is followed.

METHODS

52 patients with evidence of periprosthetic infection had preoperative aspiration of the affected hip. The infecting organisms were identified in 33/52 and single-stage revision was performed. The remaining 19 patients had a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. Patients in the single-stage revision protocol had antibiotic loaded morsellized bone graft, a cemented cup and a long cementless stem.

RESULTS

At an average follow up of 6 (range 4-8) years postoperatively, only 1 case of persistent infection was found in the single-stage group - a 97% rate of eradicating infection was achieved.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage exchange achieves excellent success rate in patients with periprosthetic infection when a specific protocol for patient selection and management is followed.

The Use of a Supra-Acetabular Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Shelf to Improve Hip Stability in First-Stage Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in first-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for managing infection are associated with high dislocation and fracture rates. The aim of this study was to report the use of an antibiotic-loaded cemented supra-acetabular roof augmentation to reinforce hip stability after cement spacer insertion for first-stage total hip revision in the treatment of infected THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 50 THAs involving 47 patients with an infected hip requiring staged revisions of THA. We documented dislocation, reinfection, and time for revision and outcome.

RESULTS

There were no cases of hip dislocation, cement fractures, or any other technical complications associated with the use of the roof augmentation lip. Thirteen cases (26%) had a cemented spacer for longer than 120 days. Seven (14%) cases had recurrent infection after staged revision THA.

CONCLUSION

The antibiotic-loaded cemented supra-acetabular roof augment improved femoral head spacer coverage for patients requiring a staged revision THA for 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.

Risk of Reinfection After Treatment of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of subsequent reinfections after initial treatment of an infected total knee arthroplasty, identify risk factors leading to reinfection, and compare results among the varying treatment modalities.

METHODS

A total of 1,493,924 primary TKA patients were identified from the Medicare data between October 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011. Patients who encountered periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after TKA were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 996.66. The risk of subsequent PJI was stratified based on the first-line treatment and compared between the various first-line treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 16,622 patients (1.1%) were diagnosed with PJI. The Kaplan-Meier risk of PJI was 0.77% at 1 year and 1.58% at 6 years. Age (P < .001), Charlson score (P < .001), hospital control (P < .001), race (P = .036), census region (P = .031), gender (P < .001) were identified as risk factors for PJI. Of the PJI patients, 20.8% (n = 2806) were treated with incision and drainage (I&D), 15.9% (n = 2150) treated with I&D and liner exchange, 22.7% (n = 3069) treated with 1-stage revision, 39.7% (n = 5364) treated with 2-stage revision, and 0.98% (n = 132) treated with amputation. After first-line treatment, 26% of patients with PJI had a subsequent PJI. Patients undergoing I&D as a first-line treatment had the highest risk of reinfection, with risks of 28.2% at 1 year and 43.2% at 6 years. One-stage revision patients had 33.9% greater adjusted risk of reinfection than 2-stage revision patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Two-stage reimplantation, despite 19% recurrence, had the highest success rate. Given the higher failure rates of I&D and single-stage revisions, guidelines need to be established for their specific indications.

Higher reliability of triple-phase bone scintigraphy in cementless total hip arthroplasty compared to cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty

Purpose

Periprosthetic infection is one of the main reasons for revision surgery after hip arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study is to compare the reliability of triple-phase bone scintigraphy (TPBS) in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection between cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA).

Methods

In this retrospective study, 52 patients were analyzed; 33 of them were performed with THA and 19 of them were performed with BHA. The exclusion criteria were cementation in previous surgery, romatological joint disorders, periprosthetic fracture and malignancy history. C reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation (ESR) rate results were recorded preoperatively. Tissue samples from the different areas periprosthetic tissue were obtained for histopathological examination and sample tissue culture.

Results

In the present study, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 90.9%, 77.3% and 81.8%, respectively, for THA and 77.8%, 60.0% and 68.4%, respectively, for BHA. Positive predictive values for THA and BHA were 66.7% and 63.6%, and negative predictive values were 94.4% and 75.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to the higher sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, TPBS has a more reliable diagnostic value for cementless THA in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection compared to cementless BHA.

•

Triple-phase bone scintigraphy is effective in ruling out infection with its higher sensitivity.

•

Triple-phase bone scintigraphy has relatively low specificity compared to its high sensitivity.

Quantification of neutrophil polymorphs in infected and noninfected second-stage revision hip arthroplasties

AIMS

In the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a heavy neutrophil polymorph (NP) infiltrate (&gt;5 per high-power field [HPF] by MSIS criteria) is characteristically seen in periprosthetic tissues. PJI is commonly treated by a two-stage procedure with surgical clearance of infected tissues followed by intensive antibiotic treatment before re-implantation; tissues are sampled at the time of second stage but whether MSIS histological criteria can be used to diagnose the presence or absence of infection in second stage samples has not been established.

METHODS

Periprosthetic tissues from 31 cases of second-stage revision hip arthroplasty (including 3 cases fulfilling the microbiological MSIS criteria for PJI), were analysed histologically after haematoxylin-eosin and chloroacetate esterase (CAE) staining. The extent of the NP infiltrate was determined semiquantitatively and correlated with the microbiological diagnosis.

RESULTS

CAE staining facilitated identification of NPs in arthroplasty tissues and showed that in those cases where an organism was cultured in 2 or more samples, meeting the MSIS microbiological criteria for definite diagnosis of PJI, there was a heavy polymorph infiltrate (&gt;5 NP per HPF on average). It was noted that isolated or scattered NPs were seen in 42.8% of periprosthetic tissues from noninfected second-stage revisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSIS histological criteria which support a diagnosis of PJI in specimens from a primary revision hip arthroplasty (i.e. &gt;5 NPs per HPF on average) are also valid for the assessment of a second-stage specimens. NPs can be seen in samples of periprosthetic tissue from uninfected second-stage revisions, indicating that strict histological criteria should be used in evaluating their significance in this context.