Changes in microbiological spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic shoulder infections

The Value of Preoperative Ultrasound-Determined Fluid Film and Joint Aspiration in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the diagnostic value of ultrasound (US)-determined fluid film and joint aspiration prior to revision total hip arthroplasty for suspected periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are limited. This study aimed to analyze the value of US-determined fluid film, characterized the preoperative and intraoperative microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns, and compared the concordance between preoperative synovial fluid and intraoperative culture results.

METHODS

We analyzed 366 US examinations from 324 patients prior to revision total hip arthroplasty. Selected cases were grouped into clearly infected, noninfected, and inconclusive cohorts, according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 Criteria. For US-determined fluid film <1 mm, no aspiration was performed based on our institutional protocol. Patients were grouped into no aspiration (144 of 366; [39.3%]), dry tap (21 of 366; [5.7%]), and a successful tap (201 of 366; [54.9%]). The microbiological spectrum and antibiograms were compared between preoperative and intraoperative results.

RESULTS

The absence of US-determined fluid film showed no correlation with the presence of a hip PJI. Overall, 31.9% cases of the no-aspiration group had a PJI. In total, 13.5% discrepancies were found between successful taps and intraoperative cultures. The most prevalent microorganisms in preoperative synovial fluid were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus (20.8%), while intraoperatively S. epidermidis (26.3%) and Cutibacterium acnes (14.5%) were leading. Additional microorganisms were identified in 32.5% of intraoperative cultures. There were no differences between resistance patterns of preoperative and intraoperative concordant microorganisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of US-determined fluid film cannot rule out the presence of a hip PJI. Combined microbiological results from hip US aspirations and subsequent surgical procedures are crucial to design an effective treatment for suspected hip PJI.

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.

[Shoulder periprosthetic infections-what to do? : Diagnosis and treatment]

Treatment of an infected shoulder prosthesis differs significantly from other joint infections because of the unique microbiome, dominated by Cutibacterium acnes. The cause of an infection, its time of onset, the bacterial spectrum and comorbidities have to be considered for evaluation and treatment. The diagnostic workup is sometimes complex, and the recognition of a chronic and low-grade infection is often difficult because typical clinical and laboratory markers may be normal. Treatment is surgical; the therapeutic spectrum ranges from arthroscopic irrigation and open debridement with the exchange of components to one- and two-stage revisions using antibiotic-loaded spacers. Early detection and a targeted, appropriate therapy are crucial to avoid extensive soft tissue and bone damage.