Partial implant retention in two-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty

Efficacy and safety of two-stage revision for patients with culture-negative versus culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of two-stage revision for culture-negative PJI remain controversial. This study analyzed outcomes after two-stage revision in patients with culture-negative and culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) during follow-up lasting at least two years.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analysed patients who underwent hip or knee revision arthroplasty from January 2008 to October 2020 at our medical center. The primary outcome was the re-revision rate, while secondary outcomes were the rates of reinfection, readmission, and mortality. Patients with culture-negative or culture-positive PJI were compared in terms of these outcomes, as well as survival time without reinfection or revision surgery, based on Kaplan‒Meier analysis.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 87 patients who were followed up for a mean of 72.3 months (range, 24-123 months). The mean age was 58.1 years in the culture-negative group (n = 24) and 59.1 years in the culture-positive group (n = 63). The two groups (culture-negative versus culture-positive) did not differ significantly in rates of re-revision (0.0% vs. 3.2%, p > 0.05), reinfection (4.2% vs. 3.2%, p > 0.05), readmission (8.4% vs. 8.0%, p > 0.05), or mortality (8.3% vs. 7.9%, p > 0.05). They were also similar in survival rates without infection-related complications or revision surgery at 100 months (91.5% in the culture-negative group vs. 87.9% in the culture-positive group; Mantel‒Cox log-rank χ2 = 0.251, p = 0.616).

CONCLUSION

The two-stage revision proves to be a well-tolerated and effective procedure in both culture-negative and culture-positive PJI during mid to long-term follow-up.

Partial Two-Stage Exchange for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Treatment to Take into Account

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage revision is the gold standard for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The removal of well-fixed implants, especially the femoral component, can be extremely difficult and additional osteotomies may be needed, which is time-consuming and results in bone stock loss. When the femoral stem is osseointegrated, there is no clear indication for the use of partial two-stage revision. The primary objective was to assess infection eradication after surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective study of specific case series. A total of eight patients with a chronic uncemented PJI, in the setting of complex revision surgeries, were treated with partial two-stage revision, which included selective retention of the well-fixed femoral component and complete acetabular removal. Stem retention was carried out regardless of the bacteria or associated comorbidities.

RESULTS

All patients were re-revision cases with at least two previous surgeries (range, 2-4). Complex revisions were performed in five cases (non-articulated spacer) and simple revisions in three cases (articulated spacer). The minimum follow-up time was 24 months (range, 24-132 months). The infection eradication rate at final follow-up was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Partial two-stage reconstruction is a promising technique for the treatment of chronic PJI in patients with a well-fixed stem and complex re-revision acetabular procedures. Further prospective studies and prolonged follow-ups are required to confirm our results.

Partial two-stage exchange: an alternative method for infected total hip arthroplasty

Background

Total two-stage exchange is commonly used in clinical practice as a treatment for infected total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, this approach involves considerable limitations, including significant bone loss and severe trauma. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes following the use of partial two-stage exchange (PTE) for infected THA.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 28 patients with infected THA who were treated by PTE between September 2000 and June 2019. Eligibility for PTE was limited to patients with a well-fixed femoral stem prosthesis. In the first stage of the operation, the femoral stem prosthesis was preserved; subsequently, the acetabular prosthesis, liner, and head were replaced with an antibiotic-loaded spacer. The new prosthesis was then implanted into patients and monitored for at least 3 months to ensure freedom from infection.

Results

Patients were followed for an average of 4 years (range, 2–11 years), with an overall success rate of 85.7% (24/28). The mean Harris hip score at the final follow-up was 76.2 ± 11.7 points.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that PTE could be an acceptable option for a subset of patients with infected THA, offering a satisfactory infection control rate and clinical outcomes comparable to those of total two-stage exchange, but with less harm.

Evaluation and interpretation of prosthetic joint infection diagnostic investigations

BACKGROUND

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is considered one of the most successful surgical procedures ever developed. It can successfully provide pain relief, restore joint function, and improve mobility and quality of life. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents with a wide variety and severity of signs and symptoms. It remains a major threat to the outcome of TJA procedures and usually necessitates surgical intervention and prolonged courses of antibiotics. Inappropriate treatment of an unrecognized PJI usually ends with unacceptable and sometimes catastrophic results.

THE AIM

The understanding and evaluation of diagnostic investigations are extremely important to properly diagnose PJI, including frequently unrecognized low-grade infections, and to provide healthcare professionals with needed information for the care of patients affected by this condition. This article aims to review most of the methods available in PJI diagnostics, to emphasize the strengths and the weaknesses of each of them, and to provide a guideline on how to select the surgical treatment strategy based on the level of diagnostic certainty during the evaluation period. To safely accomplish this, it is crucial to be aware of the limitations of each diagnostic modality.

THE FOCUS

The emphasis will be on the use and interpretation of the core criteria for PJI diagnosis, including the pathognomonic sinus tract communicating with the implant, purulent synovial fluid, inflammation in the periprosthetic tissue, cell count with differential, microbial growth in the synovial fluid culture, tissue sample cultures, and sonication samples.