An often-unrecognized entity as cause of recurrent infection after successfully treated two-stage exchange arthroplasty: hematogenous infection

Total hip arthroplasty for destructive septic arthritis of the hip using a two-stage protocol without spacer placement

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of patients with a degenerative joint disease secondary to an active or chronic septic arthritis of the hip is unclear. The aim of the present study was to report on our experience with two-stage total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a contemporary treatment protocol without spacer insertion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our prospective institutional database was used to identify all patients with degenerative septic arthritis treated with a non-spacer two-stage protocol between 2011 and 2017. Clinical outcomes included interim revision, periprosthetic infection (PJI) and aseptic revision rates. Restoration of leg-length and offset were assessed radiographically. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) were obtained. Treatment success was defined using the modified Delphi consensus criteria. Mean follow-up was 62 months (13-110).

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients with a mean age of 60 years (13-85) were included. 55% of the cohort was male and average Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 3.7 (0-12). 21 patients (64%) had an active/acute infection and 12 patients (36%) were treated for chronic/quiescent septic arthritis. Overall, 11 patients (33%) had treatment failure, including 5 patients who failed to undergo THA, 2 interim re-debridement for persistent infection, and 4 patients who developed PJI after an average of 7 months (0.3-13) following THA. The most common identified pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (42.4%). No aseptic revision was recorded following THA. Leg-length and offset were successfully restored. Mean mHHS improved from 35.2 points to 73.4 points.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage THA without spacer placement is a viable treatment option for destructive septic arthritis of the hip, demonstrating comparable rates of infection control and functional outcome. However, definitive resection arthroplasty is not uncommon in these often critically ill patients.

Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Intermediate Resection Arthroplasty Is Safe for Use in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

Background: This study sought to compare the results of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients with and without the use of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) for removal of a well-fixed femoral stem or cement. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had undergone an ETO as part of a two-stage revision without spacer placement were matched 1:2 with a cohort of sixty-four patients of the same sex and age who had stem removal without any osteotomy. Clinical outcomes including interim revision, reinfection and aseptic failure rates were evaluated. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Minimum follow-up was two years. Results: Patients undergoing ETO had a significantly lower rate of interim re-debridement compared to non-ETO patients (0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.026). Reinfection following reimplantation was similar in both groups (12.5% in ETO patients vs. 9.4% in non-ETO patients, p = 0.365). Revision for aseptic reason was necessary in 12.5% in the ETO group and 14.1% in the non-ETO group (p = 0.833). Periprosthetic femoral fractures were seen in three patients (3.1%), of which all occurred in non-ETO patients. Dislocation was the most common complication, which was equally distributed in both groups (12.5%). The mean mHHS was 37.7 in the ETO group and 37.3 in the non-ETO group, and these scores improved significantly in both groups following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusion: ETO without the use of spacer is a safe and effective method to manage patients with well-fixed femoral stems and for thorough cement removal in two-stage revision THA for PJI. While it might reduce the rate of repeated debridement in the interim period, the use of ETO appears to lead to similar reinfection rates following reimplantation.

Short-term results of treatment of staphylococcal periprosthetic hip joint infection with combined antibiotics and bacteriophages treatment

Infectious complications after primary implantation of the hip joint are 0.5–3 %, and in the case of re-endoprosthetics, the risk of periprosthetic infection can reach 30 %. Also, we should not forget about the high percentage (16–20 %) of recurrence of periprosthetic infection of the hip joint, which leads to an unsatisfactory result of treatment up to amputation of a limb or even death of the patient. The reasons for the recurrence of the infectious process can be antibiotic resistance and antibiotic tolerance of microorganisms, as well as the ability of microorganisms to form biofilms on implants. In this regard, there is a constant need to search for alternative means of antimicrobial therapy, as well as to select the optimal ways of their delivery and deposition, which is of practical importance when performing surgical interventions in traumatology and orthopedics to protect the implantable structure from possible infection of the surgical site. One of the methods currently available to combat bacterial infections acquired antibiotic resistance and antibiotic tolerance is the use of natural viruses that infect bacterial bacteriophages. The above suggests a more effective suppression of periprosthetic infection, including persisters that deviate from antibiotics. It is, as a rule, associated with biofilms if used in conjunction with antibiotics and phages, when the use of bacteriophages predetermines the effectiveness of treatment. With the use of sensitive bacteriophages in the treatment of periprosthetic infections, a significant (p = 0.030) reduction in the rate of recurrence of infection (from 31 to 4.5 %) was observed. The use of lytic bacteriophages in traumatology and orthopedics is of great interest for phagotherapy of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant and biofilm-forming strains of bacteria. A clinical study using a single-stage surgical revision with simultaneous application of antibiotics and phages in the treatment of deep periprosthesis infection of the hip joint endoprosthesis, followed by 12 months follow-up for periprosthetic infection recurrence, demonstrated the effectiveness of the use of combined antibiotic and bacteriophages treatment.

Failure analysis of infection persistence after septic revision surgery: a checklist algorithm for risk factors in knee and hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Several studies describe risk factors for primary periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and general treatment outcome factors like microbe spectrum or patient-specific risk factors. However, these general and patient dependent findings cannot solely explain all cases of infection persistence after a prior septic revision. This study analyzes possible specific and patient independent reasons for failure after revisions for PJI in knee and hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a prospective analysis all patients were included that were treated: (1) at our department, (2) with a two-stage exchange, (3) between 2013 and 2017, (4) due to an infection persistence after a previous revision for PJI. Possible reasons for infection persistence were identified using a checklist algorithm, based on international guidelines.

RESULTS

70 patients with infection persistence could be included (44 knee joints, 26 hip joints). The average age was 71 years, the CCI (Charlson Comorbidity Index) 2.8 and the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score 2.7. In 85% at least one possible reason for patient independent infection persistence could be identified analyzing the previous infection therapy: (1) 50% inadequate therapy concept (n = 35), (2) 33% inadequate surgical debridement (n = 23), (3) 30% inadequate antimicrobial therapy (n = 21), (4) 13% missed external bacterial primary focus (n = 9). After the individual failure analysis, all 70 patients were treated with a two-stage exchange in our department and in 94.9% infection freedom could be achieved (34.3 ± 10.9 months follow-up).

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of failed revisions with subsequent infection persistence at least one possible patient independent failure cause could be identified. The entire previous therapy should be critically reviewed following failing revisions to optimize the outcome of septic revisions. By using a checklist algorithm, high rates of infection freedom were achieved.

Implications for diagnosis and treatment of peri-spinal implant infections from experiences in periprosthetic joint infections-a literature comparison and review

Both, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and peri-spinal implant infection (PSII) are serious complications occurring in arthroplasty and spine instrumentation with absolute numbers expected to rise in the next years. The currently existing literature data describing the characteristics of PSII are limited when compared to PJI studies. However, both PJI and PSII exhibit similarities concerning pathogenesis, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. This literature review aims at comparing PJI and PSII and to develop implications for diagnosis and treatment of PSII from existing studies about PJI. The review was performed on the basis of a structured PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Medline analysis and existing guidelines, with 99 references being included. The results indicate that specific terms like re-infection should be defined in the context of PSII based on existing definitions of PJI, that in vitro biofilm studies and studies analyzing different prosthesis surfaces in arthroplasty could be used for PSII, and that histopathology as an additional standard tool in PSII diagnosis might be helpful. In addition, the development of a standardized algorithm-based treatment system with antibiotic protocols, including long term suppression, for PSII similar to the ones existing for PJI is necessary.

Difficult to treat: are there organism-dependent differences and overall risk factors in success rates for two-stage knee revision?

OBJECTIVES

Failure after two-stage procedure for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare, but devastating complication. Some authors assume a correlation of underlying organisms and recurrence rate. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococci (MRS) and other organisms (quinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, rifampicin-resistant Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, and Candida) are meant to be "difficult to treat" (DTT) with an inferior outcome for two-stage revision. In addition to the type of bacteria, some more risk factors seem to be present. The aim of this study was (1) to detect a difference of reinfection rates between reinfection-causing groups of bacteria ["difficult to treat" (DTT), "easy to treat" (ETT) and methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS)] after a two-stage procedure, and (2) find overall risk factors for reinfection in a standardized long (spacer insertion for at least 6 weeks) two-stage procedure for periprosthetic knee infection.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-seven two-stage revisions for periprosthetic knee infection were performed at one tertiary referral center. Finally, 96 patients could be included for analyses. Possible risk factors (comorbidities, prior surgery, etc.) and the types of organisms were documented. Quinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, rifampicin-resistant Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, and Candida were classified as "difficult to treat" (DTT). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococci were summarized as "MRS", all other organism are summarized as "easy to treat" (ETT). Statistical analyses included univariate analysis (t test, Fisher's exact test, Chi square test) and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were no statistical significant differences in recurrent infection rates between organism groups (DTT vs. ETT, p = 0.674; DTT vs. MRS, p = 0.705; ETT vs. MRS, p = 0.537). Risk factors seem to be "need of revision after first stage" (p = 0.019, OR 5.62) or completed second stage (p = 0.000, OR 29.07), numbers of surgeries (p = 0.028) and alcohol abuse (p = 0.019, OR 5.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision needed during or after a two-stage exchange, numbers of surgeries and alcohol abuse are risk factors for recurrence, a different recurrence rates between organism-groups cannot be shown. The absence of significant differences in recurrence rates points to the importance of the individuality of each periprosthetic infection case: a reduction of necessary surgeries (with a thorough debridement, appropriate antibiotic addition to spacers) and the control of comorbidities (alcohol abuse) appear to be essential components of a two-stage exchange.

High Rates of Aseptic Loosening After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

With increasing life expectancy, the demand for knee replacement is continuously rising. Despite the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and improved aseptic surgical techniques, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) still occurs in 1% to 5% of patients after primary arthroplasty. An open question is the influence of PJI and resulting surgical procedures on the occurrence of long-term complications such as aseptic loosening. Patients needing multiple revision surgeries are especially at risk for decreases in bone mass and damage to the medullary cavity. Thus, we theorized that prior surgeries on the affected knee increase the risk of aseptic loosening in patients with PJI.

Management of Chronically Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty With Severe Bone Loss Using Static Spacers With Intramedullary Rods

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision with static antibiotic spacers is the preferred treatment for chronically infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA) associated with severe bone loss. Intramedullary rods to reinforce static spacers have been described. On those, however, bacterial colonization may occur and hamper infection control. This study reports the microbiological findings on the spacer rods and the treatment outcome among these patients.

METHODS

We reviewed 97 infected TKA with extensive bone loss treated with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers reinforced with intramedullary rods. Mean interim period with the spacer in situ was 9 weeks (range: 6-24 weeks). Intraoperative cultures and sonicated spacer rods were analyzed. Mean follow-up after TKA reimplantation was 41 months (range: 27-56 months). Treatment success was defined using the modified Delphi consensus criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (23%) had treatment failure, including 3 reinfections caused by the same organism, 9 reinfections caused by a different organism, 9 patients required interim spacer exchange, and 1 patient died in the early postoperative course. Sonication cultures of the spacer rods were positive in 2 cases (2%), and none of them failed. Host and limb status was significantly worse in patients who sustained reinfection. At the latest follow-up, all patients had a TKA in place, and 2 patients received chronic antibiotic suppression.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage revision with the use of intramedullary rods is a safe and efficient treatment for chronically infected TKA with severe bone loss. Most reinfections grew different organisms compared with initial infection. Compromised hosts and extremities may be subjected to chronic antibiotic suppression.

A standardized interdisciplinary algorithm for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections

AIMS

In 2013, we introduced a specialized, centralized, and interdisciplinary team in our institution that applied a standardized diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The hypothesis for this study was that the outcome of treatment would be improved using this approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective analysis with a standard postoperative follow-up, 95 patients with a PJI of the hip and knee who were treated with a two-stage exchange between 2013 and 2017 formed the study group. A historical cohort of 86 patients treated between 2009 and 2011 not according to the standardized protocol served as a control group. The success of treatment was defined according to the Delphi criteria in a two-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients in the study group had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.9 vs 3.1; p = 0.009) and rate of previous revisions for infection (52.6% vs 36%; p = 0.025), and tended to be older (69.0 vs 66.2 years; p = 0.075) with a broader polymicrobial spectrum (47.3% vs 33.7%; p = 0.062). The rate of recurrent infection (3.1% vs 10.4%; p = 0.048) and the mean time interval between the two stages of the procedure (66.6 vs 80.7 days; p < 0.001) were reduced significantly in the study group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

We were able to show that the outcome following the treatment of PJIs of the hip and knee is better when managed in a separate department with an interdisciplinary team using a standard algorithm.