Two-stage shoulder arthroplasty after deep infection of the shoulder caused by arthroplasty, osteosynthesis or other surgical procedures: microbial spectrum, complications and functional outcome after at least 1 year follow-up

One- vs. Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) remains a challenging complication after shoulder arthroplasty. Therapeutic options include one- or two-stage revision, irrigation and debridement, and resection arthroplasty. With our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to compare one- and two-stage revisions for periprosthetic shoulder joint infections and determine the most appropriate therapeutic procedure. We performed an extensive literature search in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL and filtered out all relevant studies. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, heterogeneity was analyzed using I2, and publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. A total of 8 studies with one-stage revisions, 36 studies with two-stage revisions, and 12 studies with both one-stage and two-stage revisions were included. According to the random-effects model, the reinfection rate for the entirety of the studies was 12.3% (95% Cl: 9.6-15.3), with a low-to-moderate heterogeneity of I2 = 47.72%. The reinfection rate of the one-stage revisions was 10.9%, which was significantly lower than the reinfection rate of the two-stage revisions, which was 12.93% (p = 0.0062). The one-stage revision rate was significantly lower with 1.16 vs. 2.25 revisions in the two-stage revision group (p < 0.0001). The postoperative functional outcome in one-stage-revised patients was comparable but not statistically significant (p = 0.1523). In one- and two-stage revisions, most infections were caused by Cutibacterium acnes. In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis show the superiority of single-stage revision regarding reinfection and revision rates in periprosthetic shoulder joint infection.

Outcomes following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for infection

BACKGROUND

In comparison to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) procedures, revision arthroplasty can be a longer and more complex procedure leading to an increased risk of complications. The reported rates of infection in primary RSA range from 1% to 19% and the cost impact on patients and health care systems is significant, leading to multiple revision surgeries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, complications, and revision rates for revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rRSA) due to infection compared with rRSA for noninfectious causes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rRSA between 2009 and 2020 by a single fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon at a single institution were retrospectively identified through a prospectively collected database. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts based on revision diagnosis: (1) rRSA due to infection (rRSAi) and (2) rRSA due to noninfectious causes (rRSAn). Patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), including the Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score, and active range of motion (ROM) were collected preoperatively and at a minimum 1-year follow-up. Postoperative complications and revision rates were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients (n = 19 rRSAi group, n = 74 rRSAn group) with a mean age of 68 years were included in this analysis. All baseline demographics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in preoperative or postoperative PROs and ROM between the 2 groups. Postoperative complication rates and revision rates were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

RSA due to infection results in similar patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, and revision rates when compared to rRSA for noninfectious causes. Our results suggest that despite the unique challenges associated with rRSA for infection, patient outcomes do not differ from cases attributed to noninfectious causes. More efforts are warranted to further validate and contextualize these findings, considering the protentional influence of patient-specific and implant-specific factors.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection management: one-stage should be the way: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus among surgeons on whether to perform a 1- or 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to rigorously synthesize published studies evaluating the clinical outcomes, recurrence of infection, and other clinical complications in order to discuss which is the best strategy for treating periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Upon research using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in November 2022, studies that presented 1- or 2-stage surgical revision as a treatment for periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty and assessed the reinfection rate on these patients, as well as other clinical outcomes, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Reinfection and complication rates were extracted, and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

After careful screening, 44 studies were included, 5 reporting on 1-stage and 30 on 2-stage revisions and 9 assessing both strategies. A total of 185 shoulders were reported in 1-stage revision studies, whereas 526 shoulders were reported in 2-stage revision studies. The overall pooled random-effects reinfection rate was 6.68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-10.13), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, P = .03). One-stage revision showed a reinfection rate of 1.14% (95% CI: 0.00-4.88), whereas 2-stage revision analysis revealed a reinfection rate of 8.81% (95% CI: 4.96-13.33). There were significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage reinfection rates (P = .04). The overall pooled rate for other clinical complications was 16.76% (95% CI: 9.49-25.15), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P < .01). One-stage revision had a complication rate of 6.11% (95% CI: 1.58-12.39), whereas the 2-stage revision complication rate was 21.26% (95% CI: 11.51-32.54). This difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis showing significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. Provided the right conditions exist, 1-stage revision shows better results in infection control, with lower clinical complications and possible better clinical outcomes.

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes after two-stage revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with the results of primary RSA. Patients affected by PJI and treated by means of two-stage revision RSA were 1:1 matched with a group of patients who were treated electively with RSA without developing any complications. Out of 1477 RSAs performed between 2009 and 2021, 16 patients developed a PJI. Each matched cohort comprised 16 patients (3 females, 13 males). The mean age was 69.13 ± 5.43 years old in the PJI group and 70.28 ± 5.04 (p = 0.543) in the matched cohort. The mean follow-up was 41.23 ± 26.9 months in the PJI group and 28.5 ± 20.2 (p = 0.142) in the matched group. Only one patient showed recurrent PJI five years after revision RSA. Comparison between the PJI patients and matched patients did not show any significant differences at the latest follow-up, nor for subjective shoulder value (SSV) (p = 0.101) or Constant score (p = 0.134). Two-stage exchange RSA for PJI allows for appropriate control of the disease and good functional outcomes. Comparison with an age- and sex-matched cohort of uninfected patients showed no significant differences, thus confirming the idea that revision surgeries may lead to satisfactory functional outcomes, as expected after primary surgery.

The POSI study: gender differences in 94 cases of postoperative shoulder surgery infection: results of a 7-year retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Contrary to lower limb infection, POstoperative Shoulder surgery Infection (POSI) often involves Cutibacterium acnes. Our aim was to describe patient characteristics and pathogens retrieved in POSI to guide initial empiric antibiotic selection with suspected infection during revision. We also compared microorganisms in infection following trauma, arthroplasty (AP), and arthroscopy (AS).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study from 2010 to 2016 reviewed laboratory databases and medical records to identify patients with a previous shoulder surgery and a confirmed shoulder infection. The following procedures were included: AP, AS, fracture fixation (FF), and another open surgery (OS). A confirmed shoulder infection was defined as 2 positive cultures or more of the same microorganism, or clear clinical infection with 1 positive culture or more.

RESULTS

Among the 5 hospitals and 28 surgeons involved, 94 POSI cases were identified. Mean age was 59 years at index surgery (range: 22-91) with a majority of men (n = 70, 74%). Among POSI cases, AP was the most common index surgery (n = 41), followed by FF (n = 27), AS (n = 16), and OS (n = 10). The median time between index surgery and the first positive sample was 5 months and the mean was 23 months (minimum 6 days to maximum 27 years), illustrating a positively skewed distribution. Cutibacterium spp were identified in 64 patients (68%), including 59 C acnes patients (63%), which was the most frequent germ in all 4 surgical groups. In 86% of cases, C acnes was identified at the first revision. The other 2 most common germs were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus, with 29% and 17%, respectively. Polymicrobial infection was present in 30% of patients. Gender analysis revealed that C acnes was twice as frequent in men (male = 52 of 70, female = 7 of 24; P < .001). S epidermidis was more prevalent in women (n = 11; 46%) compared with men (n = 16; 21%) (P = .032). C acnes infection was most frequent in arthroscopic surgery (n = 14; 70%, P = .049). S epidermidis was 3 times more prevalent in chronic than in acute cases.

CONCLUSION

Empiric antimicrobial therapy following POSI, while waiting for culture results, should cover C acnes, S epidermidis, and S aureus. There is a significant gender difference regarding POSI culture results. C acnes is more frequent in men, but should still be covered in women as it was found in 29% of cases.