Treatment solutions are unclear for perimegaprosthetic infections

High Rates of Treatment Failure and Amputation in Modular Endoprosthesis Prosthetic Joint Infections Caused by Fungal Infections With Candida

BACKGROUND

Fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are rare yet severe events associated with high rates of recurrent infection. Although bacterial PJIs associated with megaprostheses are known to be associated with higher rates of recurrence and amputation, little is known about fungal PJIs near megaprostheses.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In patients with fungal megaprosthesis PJIs from one institutional registry, we asked: (1) What were the most common microorganisms isolated? (2) What were the reoperation-, revision-, and amputation-free survival rates 1 and 2 years after surgery?

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of megaprostheses in our institutional database. Between 2000 and 2022, 86 patients with a diagnosis of PJI after megaprosthesis implantation were surgically treated at our institution. We considered patients with microbiological cultures that were positive for fungal organisms and who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years from the initial treatment for PJI. Ten patients with fungal megaprosthesis PJIs were included. Although four patients had a follow-up shorter than 2 years, all reached one of the study endpoints at that earlier interval, and therefore were included. All included patients were treated between 2016 and 2022, and the diagnosis of PJI was made in accordance with the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Patients were treated with either debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), DAIR-plus (debridement, antibiotics, modular implant component exchange, and stem retention), or one-stage or two-stage revision. In general, DAIR was used for acute PJIs, while DAIR-plus was performed in patients with chronic PJIs who were deemed medically unfit to endure the high morbidity associated with removal of the stems. In cases of prior unsuccessful DAIR-plus or patients with fewer comorbidities, one-stage or two-stage revision was the main treatment approach. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 32 to 84 years), 5 of 10 patients were female, and the median BMI was 31 kg/m 2 (range 20 to 43 kg/m 2 ). The median follow-up was 26 months (range 1 to 54 months). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to calculate reoperation-, revision-, and amputation-free survival at 1 and 2 years from the index surgery for PJI.

RESULTS

The two most common organisms were Candida albicans (5 of 10 patients) and C.parapsilosis (3 of 10). Six of 10 patients had coinfection with a bacterial organism. One-year reoperation-free and revision-free survival were 35% (95% CI 9% to 64%) and 42% (95% CI 11% to 71%), respectively. Two-year reoperation-free and revision-free survival were 12% (95% CI 1% to 40%) and 14% (95% CI 1% to 46%), respectively. Amputation-free survival was 74% (95% CI 30% to 93%) at the 1-year interval and 40% at the 2-year interval (95% CI 7% to 73%). At the final follow-up interval, four patients had undergone amputations and four were being administered chronic antifungal suppression.

CONCLUSION

Megaprosthesis fungal PJIs are rare but devastating. Arthroplasty surgeons should consider treatment efficacy, which appears to be low across surgical strategies, and the patient's capacity to withstand it. A lower decision threshold for performing amputation may be considered in patients who require rapid infection control to initiate immunosuppressive treatments. Future studies should aim to compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of fungal PJIs with those of other etiologies while controlling for potential variables. Efforts should be made to establish multi-institutional collaborations to achieve larger study samples.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention (DAIR) Plus Offers Similar Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment Success Rates to Two-Stage Revision in Oncologic Megaprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after megaprosthesis implantation are associated with high rates of treatment failure and amputation. Our study analyzed PJI treatment success rates by surgical strategy and assessed risks of reinfection and amputation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients diagnosed with PJI after undergoing megaprosthesis implantation for oncologic indications. The 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were used to define PJI. Reinfection, reoperation, and amputation for PJI recurrence were assessed. A total of 67 patients with megaprosthesis PJIs were included. There were fourteen patients who were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), 31 with DAIR plus (DAIR with modular component exchange and stem retention), and 21 with two-stage revisions. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards for risk factor analyses.

RESULTS

The two-year reinfection-free survival was 25% for DAIR and 60% for DAIR plus or two-stage revision (P = .049). The five-year amputation-free survival was 84% for DAIR plus or two-stage revision, and 48% for DAIR (P = .13). Reinfection-free, reoperation-free, and amputation-free survival were similar between DAIR plus and two-stage revision at the 2- and 5-year marks. Body mass index ≥30 (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.65) and chronic kidney disease (HR = 11.53) were risk factors for reinfection. Treatment with DAIR plus or two-stage revision (HR = 0.44) was a protective factor against reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

A DAIR was associated with high rates of treatment failure and higher amputation rates than DAIR plus or 2-stage surgery. A DAIR plus was not inferior to 2-stage revision clearing a PJI and might be performed in patients who cannot withstand two-stage revision surgery.

Characteristics and Epidemiology of Megaprostheses Infections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses were first employed in oncological orthopedic surgery, but more recently, additional applications have arisen. These implants are not without any risks and device failure is quite frequent. The most feared complication is undoubtedly the implants' infection; however, the exact incidence is still unknown. This systematic review aims to estimate in the current literature the overall incidence of megaprosthesis infections and to investigate possible risk/protective factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for studies published from July 1971 to December 2023 using specific keywords. To be included, studies needed to report either the megaprosthesis anatomical site, and/or whether the megaprosthesis was coated, and/or the surgical indication as oncological or non-oncological reasons.

RESULTS

The initial literature search resulted in 1281 studies. We evaluated 10,456 patients and the overall infection rate was 12%. In cancer patients, the infection rate was 22%, while in non-oncological patients, this was 16% (trauma 12%, mechanical failure 17%, prosthetic joint infections 26%). The overall infection rates comparing coated and uncoated implants were 10% and 12.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of megaprosthesis implants is increasing considerably. In traumatological patients, the infection rate is lower compared to all the other subgroups, while the infection rate remains higher in the cancer patient group. As these devices become more common, focused studies exploring epidemiological data, clinical outcomes, and long-term complications are needed to address the uncertainties in prevention and management.

Surgical Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Hip and Knee Megaprostheses

Periprosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after the megaprosthetic reconstruction of oncologic and non-oncologic bone defects of including the knee or hip joint. Due to the relative rarity of these procedures, however, optimal management is debatable. Considering the expanding use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty and the high revision burden in orthopedic oncology, the risk of PJI is likely to increase over the coming years. In this non-systematic review article, we present and discuss current management options and the associated results focusing on studies from the last 15 years and studies from dedicated centers or study groups. The indication, surgical details and results in controlling infection are presented for debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) procedure with an exchange of the modular components, single-stage implant exchange, two-stage exchanges and ablative procedures.

Risk Factors and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infections in Megaprostheses-A Review of the Literature

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common mode of failure of megaprostheses, yet the literature on the topic is scarce, and studies report conflicting data regarding the optimal treatment strategy. Patients with megaprostheses PJI are often immunosuppressed, and surgeons must balance the trade-off between treatment efficacy and morbidity associated with the surgery aiming for infection eradication. Our review on megaprostheses PJI focuses on two axes: (1) risk factors and preventative strategies; and (2) surgical strategies to manage this condition. Risk factors were classified as either unmodifiable or modifiable. Attempts to decrease the risk of PJI should target the latter group. Strategies to prevent PJI include the use of silver-coated implants, timely discontinuation of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and adequate soft tissue coverage to diminish the amount of dead space. Regarding surgical treatment, main strategies include debridement, antibiotics, implant retention (DAIR), DAIR with modular component exchange, stem retention (DAIR plus), one-stage, and two-stage revision. Two-stage revision is the "gold standard" for PJI in conventional implants; however, its success hinges on adequate soft tissue coverage and willingness of patients to tolerate a spacer for a minimum of 6 weeks. DAIR plus and one-stage revisions may be appropriate for a select group of patients who cannot endure the morbidity of two surgeries. Moreover, whenever DAIR is considered, exchange of the modular components should be performed (DAIR plus). Due to the low volume of megaprostheses implanted, studies assessing PJI should be conducted in a multi-institutional fashion. This would allow for more meaningful comparison of groups, with sufficient statistical power. Level of evidence: IV.

Staged Management of Infection with Adjustable Spacers After Megaprosthesis Implantation in Primary Sarcoma Patients

Background

While periprosthetic joint infection has always been a significant concern for orthopaedic surgeons, the rate of infection is five to ten times higher after tumor prosthesis implantation. With the growing use of mega-implants, the number of these infections has also increased. We aimed to investigate the results of our patients with a primary malignant musculoskeletal tumor, who underwent two-stage revision surgery for an infected mega-prosthesis. We also presented the emerging complicatons and required soft tissue reconstruction procedures.

Methods

The study included 32 primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients who underwent a two-stage revision procedure for infection. After a rigorous bone and soft tissue debridement procedure at the first stage, antibiotic-loaded bone cement was wrapped around a cloverleaf type intramedullary nail and inserted into the forming gap. After a minimum of 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy, depending on patients' clinical signs and serum infection markers, the reimplantation stage was undertaken.

Results

The mean oncologic follow-up period was 28 months (range 5-96 months). During this period, 11 patients died because of non-infection related causes, 12 patients were alive with their disease, whereas 9 patients were totally free of their oncologic condition. The infection was eradicated in all survivors except one patient, where a high-level transfemoral amputation became necessary.

Conclusion

Periprosthetic infection after tumor proshesis implantation in cancer patients can be managed with same principles as conventional arthroplaty procedures, taking care that they are immunocompromised and vulnerable patients and their bone stock loss is significant which makes surgical options more challenging.

Contribution of Sonication to the Identification of Megaprosthesis Infection in Culture Negative Oncologic Patient

Conventional central osteosarcoma mainly affects the metaphysis of long bones in young people. The use of megaprostheses in oncological patients has increased in recent years. However, this type of surgery is not exempt from complications, with infections being the most common. In recent years, the presence of biofilm-forming bacteria has increased. Biofilm characteristics allow bacteria to resist hostile environmental conditions. The application of long wave ultrasound (process known as sonication) on the rescued inert material before culture interrupts the biofilm and generates a significantly higher recovery of bacterial growth compared to conventional tissue culture. We present the case of a 12-year-old patient with osteosarcoma of the femur, who, after surgery, developed a prosthetic infection detected by sonication, with negative soft tissue culture.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in non-oncological femoral megaprosthesis infections: minimum 5 year follow-up

PURPOSE

Megaprostheses are increasingly utilised outside of the oncological setting, and remain at significant risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) is an established treatment for PJI, however its use in non-oncological patients with femoral megaprostheses has not been widely reported. There are significant differences in patient physiology, treatment goals, and associated risks between these patient cohorts.

METHODS

We identified 14 patients who underwent DAIR for a PJI of their femoral megaprostheses, between 2000 and 2014, whom had their index procedure secondary to non-oncological indications. Patients were managed as part of a multidisciplinary team, with our standardised surgical technique including exchange of all mobile parts, and subsequent antibiotic therapy for a minimum of 3 months. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

Patients included six proximal femoral replacements, five distal femoral replacements, and three total femoral replacements. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were six males and eight females, with a mean age of 67.2 years, and mean ASA of 2.3. Nine patients (64.3%) successfully cleared their infection following DAIR at a minimum of 5 year follow-up. Five patients (35.7%) required further revision surgery, with four patients cleared of infection. No patients who underwent DAIR alone suffered complications as a result of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DAIR in these complex patients can lead to successful outcomes, but the risk of further revision remains high. The success rate (64.3%) remains on par with other studies evaluating DAIR in megaprostheses and in primary arthroplasty. This study indicates judicious use of DAIR can be an appropriate part of the treatment algorithm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

The Fate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Megaprosthesis Reconstruction

A megaprosthesis may be used for reconstruction in patients with massive bone loss or a periprosthetic fracture. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may occur after a megaprosthesis reconstruction and may pose a major challenge. The outcomes of managing PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis is relatively unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course and outcomes of PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis in place.

Antibacterial hydrogel coating in joint mega-prosthesis: results of a comparative series

PURPOSE

Joint mega-prosthesis after bone tumors, severe trauma or infection is associated with high rates of post-surgical septic complications. A fast-resorbable antibacterial hydrogel coating (DAC®, Defensive Antibacterial Coating) has previously been shown to be able to significantly reduce surgical site infection in various clinical settings. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DAC hydrogel coating to prevent early periprosthetic joint infection after joint mega-prosthesis.

METHODS

In this three-centers, case-control study, 43 patients, treated with an antibacterial hydrogel coated mega-prosthesis for oncological (N = 39) or non-oncological conditions (N = 4), were retrospectively compared with 43 matched controls, treated with mega-implants without the coating. Clinical, laboratory and radiographic examinations were performed to evaluate the occurrence of post-surgical infection, complications and adverse events.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 2 years, no evidence of infection or adverse events were observed in the DAC-treated group, compared to six cases of post-surgical infection in the control group.

CONCLUSION

This matched case-control study shows that a fast-resorbable, antibiotic-loaded coating can be safely used to protect joint mega-prosthesis, providing a reduction of early surgical site infections with no side effects. Larger prospective trials with longer follow-ups are warranted to confirm this report.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

RS1229/19 (Regina Elena National Cancer Institute Experimental Registry Number).

Risk Factors of Periprosthetic Infection in Patients with Tumor Prostheses Following Resection for Musculoskeletal Tumor of the Lower Limb

Tumor prostheses for the lower limb following resection of musculoskeletal tumors is useful limb salvage management; however, as compared with routine total joint replacement, an increased incidence of deep periprosthetic infection of tumor prosthesis has been observed. The risk factors for periprosthetic infection of tumor prosthesis remain unclear. This study examines the risk factors and outcomes of periprosthetic infection. This was a retrospective observational study including 121 patients (67 males and 54 females) who underwent tumor prosthesis of the lower limb after resection of musculoskeletal tumors between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2018. Among a total of 121 tumor prostheses, 7 were total femurs, 47 were proximal femurs, 47 were distal femurs, and 20 were proximal tibias. The incidence of postoperative infection and its risk factors were analyzed. Forty-five patients (37%) had osteosarcoma, 36 patients (30%) had bone metastasis, and 10 patients (8%) had soft-tissue tumors invading the bone. The mean operating time was 229 min, and the mean follow-up duration was 5.9 years. Deep periprosthetic infection was noted in 14 patients (12%). In the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for postoperative infection were identified as being male (hazard ratio [HR], 11.2316; p = 0.0100), soft-tissue tumor (HR, 52.2443; p = 0.0003), long operation (HR, 1.0056; p = 0.0184), and radiotherapy (HR, 6.5683; p = 0.0476). The incidence of periprosthetic infection in our institution was similar to that of previous reports. Patients undergoing tumor prosthesis of the lower limb who were male, had a soft-tissue tumor, were predicted to have a long operation, and who underwent radiation, had an increased possibility of postoperative infection.

The Potential Innovative Use of Bacteriophages Within the DAC® Hydrogel to Treat Patients With Knee Megaprosthesis Infection Requiring "Debridement Antibiotics and Implant Retention" and Soft Tissue Coverage as Salvage Therapy

Infection is the most dramatic complication in patients with knee megaprosthesis. Its management is more complex in comparison with patients with primary arthroplasty, with a high risk of relapse. Lytic bacteriophages are considered to have a high potential in patients with prosthetic joint infection as it has been demonstrated that they have a synergistic anti-biofilm activity with antibiotics. The Defensive Antibacterial Coating (DAC®) hydrogel is a hydrogel available in the market that has been designed to prevent the adherence of bacteria on a prosthetic joint and to have the ability to transport and release anti-bacterial substances such as antibiotics. We report here the case of a patient with a catastrophic relapsing Staphylococcus aureus knee megaprosthesis infection without prosthesis loosening. We firstly perform phage susceptibility testing of the patient's strain to select an active cocktail, under the supervision of the French health authority. Then, we performed, as salvage therapy, a debridement and implant retention procedure with application of a selected cocktail of bacteriophages that was prepared extemporaneously within the DAC® hydrogel. A free flap for soft tissue coverage was required and empirical antibiotic treatment was started immediately after the surgery. Unfortunately, at 5 days after the surgery, while the local aspect of the surgical site was favorable, the patient developed myocardial infarction which required emergency stenting and dual antiplatelet therapy that were rapidly associated with bleeding at the surgical site, leading to a new prosthesis exposition. As a consequence, a transfemoral amputation was finally performed several months later. We also evaluated in vitro the impact of DAC® hydrogel on bacteriophage activity and showed that the selected phages were released very rapidly from the DAC® hydrogel, and then their titers were stable for at least 6 h. This case demonstrated the feasibility of the use of bacteriophages within a hydrogel to treat patients for knee megaprosthesis infection during a debridement procedure. The implementation requires identification of the pathogen before the debridement in order to perform phage susceptibility testing of the patient's strain and to identify a hospital pharmacist who will accept to do the preparation and to take the responsibility of the magistral preparation.

Silver-coated (PorAg®) endoprosthesis can be protective against reinfection in the treatment of tumor prostheses infection

INTRODUCTION

We aim to evaluate the use of silver (PorAg^®) coated compared to uncoated prosthesis in two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of distal femur and proximal tibia megaprosthesis in oncological patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 68 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Median age was 30 years (range 14-83). In total, 29 patients were re-implanted with PorAg^® prosthesis and 39 with uncoated prosthesis (Megasystem C^®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany). All patients had PJI confirmed according to Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. In 10 cases, no microorganism was identified at the time of first-stage revision, but all had a sinus communicating with the prosthesis. Successful eradication of the infection was defined by the absence of clinical/serologic evidence of infection at 6 months after the second stage or at latest follow-up. Infection was again defined according to the MSIS criteria.

RESULTS

At 3-year follow-up, estimated reinfection rate in the silver group was slightly lower than in uncoated EPR (10.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.104). Among reinfected patients, only one out of three patients (33%) in the silver group required an amputation compared to 80% in the nonsilver group (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show the efficacy of PorAg^® coating in the two-stage revision of knee EPR. PorAg^®-coated EPR may have possible advantages over this traditional strategy, in particular when applied to patients with a higher risk of reinfection.

Management of infected extremity endoprostheses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstructions have become increasingly common in the setting of significant bone loss. Indications include revision arthroplasty, trauma, and reconstruction in the setting of primary malignancies or bony metastases. Although the use of endoprostheses has several advantages, they carry a high risk of infection. The purpose of this review is to determine the success rates of surgical management of infected endoprostheses.

METHODS

The authors searched databases for relevant studies and screened in duplicate. Data extracted included overall infection rate, timing of infection, follow-up, isolated pathogen and operative treatment strategy, and subsequent failure rate. The overall quality of the evidence with the Methodological Index for non-randomized studies criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies and 647 patients met the inclusion criteria. 400 patients had operative management and reported outcomes. Failure rates of patients undergoing debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) were 55.1%. Failure rates of patients who underwent one-stage revision were 45.5%. Failure rates of patients undergoing two-stage revision were 27.3%. Failure occurred at 31.4 months (range, 0-228) postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of periprosthetic joint infection remain high in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Although DAIR procedures were found to have a low success rate, they remain a reasonable option in acute infections given the morbidity of staged revisions. There is a lack of comparative data in the current literature and the heterogeneity and low level of evidence does not allow for between group comparisons of results.

Antibiotic-laden cement wrap: A simple but effective way of treating patients with megaprosthesis infection

Infection is one of the commonest causes for megaprosthesis failure. The current treatment includes antibiotics but no surgery, debridement, prosthesis removal and joint fusion, prosthesis revision or amputation. Success in controlling infection may be less than 50% in implant revision. The overall risk of amputation is more than 20%. We believe that repeated debridement with antibiotic-laden cement wrap (ALCW) may be a reliable alternative for managing the megaprosthesis infection. The purposes of this article are to identify whether ALCW is an effective way of eradicating the megaprosthesis infection, the associated complications and the functional outcome after management by ALCW.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with megaprosthesis infection. From January 2014 to June 2016, there were five patients with tumour megaprosthesis infection who had undergone the ALCW procedure. Ages ranged from 17 to 59 years of age. Male to female ratio was 4:1. The patients studied had humeral (1), proximal femoral (1), distal femoral (1) and proximal tibial (2) prostheses. All patients had follow-ups more than 1 year (21-52 months) after treatment.

RESULTS

All patients recovered from their implant infection and the implants were retained in all patients. There was no sign of infection in the most recent follow-up. One patient died of osteosarcoma recurrence. One patient had a large block of cement causing plastic insert dislodgement in the shoulder joint 1 year after surgery. Another patient with a dislocated hip cup had revision carried out in the final debridement. The most recent Musculoskeletal Tumor society (MSTS) scores ranged from 21 to 30. All patients were satisfied with their treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary report of a small number of patients, ALCW has achieved 100% infection control. ALCW may be an easy and effective alternative for managing the megasprosthesis infection. The complications associated can be avoidable. The functional outcome is excellent.

[Complication management following resection and reconstruction of the upper limbs and shoulder girdle]

BACKGROUND

Sarcomas of the upper limbs commonly affect the proximal humerus or scapula. Complications after tumor resection and reconstruction are rare but cannot be neglected, particularly after tumor endoprosthetic reconstructions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The most common complications after resection of sarcomas of the upper limbs and shoulder girdle are described, and current knowledge regarding complication management is presented. Additionally, a selective literature search was performed, incorporating personal experiences.

RESULTS

Wound healing disorders and infections after tumor resection without specific reconstruction (clavicle resection, scapulectomy) usually respond well to conservative or surgical treatment. However, periprosthetic infections after reconstruction using a megaendoprosthesis constitute a severe and frequent complication, with an incidence of 5-10%. Two-stage implant replacement still represents the gold standard, although in selected cases, one-stage revision with retention of the prosthetic stem appears warranted. Secondary amputation as a result of periprosthetic infection is rare compared to the situation with infections of the lower limb. Mechanical complications necessitating surgical revision are mostly limited to joint dislocation after inverse total shoulder replacement (TSR). (Sub)luxation in anatomic TSR can be tolerated provided there is no tendency toward perforation of the skin in a asymptomatic patient. Biological reconstructions are most often indicated for reconstruction of intercalary defects of the humerus, and revision is necessitated most frequently by mechanical complications. Despite multiple surgical revisions, stable reconstructions and limb salvage can usually be achieved in the upper limb.

Sonication Improves the Diagnosis of Megaprosthetic Infections

Limited data are available for the diagnosis of patients with tumors with infected endoprosthetic reconstructions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether sonication is effective for the diagnosis of infection and to compare it with tissue cultures. The files of 58 patients who underwent revision surgery for suspected infected endoprosthetic reconstructions were reviewed. Cultures were performed on 5 tissue samples obtained from each patient and on fluid obtained by sonication of the megaprosthesis. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of tissue and sonication fluid cultures were evaluated. Overall, tissue and sonication fluid cultures confirmed an infection in 42 of the 58 patients. In 36 of the 42 infected endoprosthetic reconstructions, tissue and sonication fluid cultures identified the same bacterial isolate. In 5 cases, a bacterial isolate was identified only in sonication fluid cultures, and in 1 case, a bacterial isolate was identified only in tissue cultures. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of sonication fluid cultures were statistically significantly better than those of tissue cultures, while the specificity and positive predictive value were not different between the 2 culture types. Compared with tissue cultures for the diagnosis of infected megaprostheses in patients with tumors, sonication fluid cultures are associated with a better sensitivity and negative predictive value and a similar specificity and positive predictive value. Therefore, sonication should be considered a useful adjunct for the optimal diagnosis and management of these patients. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(1):28-32.].

Efficacy of different revision procedures for infected megaprostheses in musculoskeletal tumour surgery of the lower limb

Purpose

The incidence of recurrent infections in patients following one or two stage revision for infected megaprostheses after resection of bone tumours was investigated. The difference between retaining at least one well fixed stem and a complete removal of the megaprosthesis during a two stage revision was also analysed.

Methods

627 patients who experienced a replacement of a musculoskeletal tumour by megaprostheses were recorded. An infection occurred in 83 of 621 patients available for follow-up. 61 patients underwent one stage revision, and 16 patients two stage revision for the first revision surgery. In the entire study period, two stage revision was performed 32 times (first, second, and third revision).

Results

The cumulative incidence analysis showed a reinfection probability after one stage revision of 18% at one year, 30% at two years, 39% at five years, 46% at ten years, and 56% at 15 years. After two stage revision, a reinfection probability of 28% at two years, and 48% at five years was calculated. Cumulative incidence curves did not differ significantly (Gray’s test; p = 0.51) between one and two stage revision (with and without complete removal of the stems). In two stage revision (n = 32), a statistically significant difference in infection rates between patients treated with complete removal of the megaprosthesis (n = 18) including anchorage stems and patients with at least one retained stem (n = 14) was shown (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.029).

Conclusion

Two stage revisions with complete removal of the megaprosthesis showed the best results among limb salvage procedures for the treatment of infected megaprosthesis.

Sonication culture improves microbiological diagnosis of modular megaprostheses

Modular megaprostheses are known for high infection rates followed by high rates of revisions. Microbial biofilms growing adherently on prosthetic surfaces may inhibit the detection of the pathogens causing prosthetic joint infections. We sought to answer the following questions: Does sonication culture (SC) improve the microbiological diagnosis of periprosthetic infections of megaprostheses compared to conventional tissue culture (TC)? Which pathogens were detected on the surface of megaprostheses with either SC or TC and do the findings help to identify low-grade infections? Included were 31 patients with modular megaprostheses, whose implant had been explanted due to suspected joint infection or revision surgery. SCs were performed according to the protocol by Trampuz et al. The diagnosis of infection was evaluated according to the definition of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The sensitivity of SC was 91.3% compared to 52.2% for TC and the specificity was 100% for SC and TC (p = 0.004). Under preoperative antibiotic therapy, the sensitivity of SC was 83.3% while the sensitivity of TC was 50%. Without preoperative antibiotic therapy the sensitivity of SC was 100% compared to 54.5% for TC. In nine cases, SCs detected microorganisms, while TC was negative. Detected bacteria were Staphylococcus epidermidis in four, Micrococcus species in one, Finegoldia magna in one, Brevibacterium casei in one, Pseudomonas fluorescens in one, and Enterococcus faecium in one. SC is a reliable method for dislodging pathogens from orthopedic implants. The SC of modular megaprostheses showed significantly higher pathogen detection than the periprosthetic TC, especially for low virulence pathogens. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:1383-1387, 2017.

Lower limb reconstruction in tumor patients using modular silver-coated megaprostheses with regard to perimegaprosthetic joint infection: a case series, including 100 patients and review of the literature

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

Bone resection regarding adequate surgical margins is the treatment of choice for malignant bone tumors. In the case of metastasis-related complications, so-called skeletal-related events, it is highly important to achieve pain relief and a stable joint situation to re-mobilize the patients immediately following surgery. To bridge the often large osseous defect zones after tumor resection, both cemented and uncemented modular endoprosthetic systems are widely used. Patients undergoing tumor-related endoprosthetic orthopedic surgery are facing high risk for developing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The immunocompromised condition due to anti-neoplastic treatment and long operation time with large exposure of tissue contributes to a high risk of infection.

METHODS

The authors present a case series of 100 patients (31% primary bone tumor and 69% metastasis-related surgery) undergoing tumor-related lower limb salvage surgery with special regard to periprosthetic joint infection and the management of this "difficult to treat" situation. Furthermore, a review of the current literature regarding infection following bone tumor resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction is performed and discussed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 24 months (range 12-108 months). Ten patients (10%) suffered from a periprosthetic joint infection. We recorded six acute infections (type I) <4 weeks after surgery, one infection >4 weeks after surgery (type II), and three late infections (type III). According to the definition of Laffer et al., three of our patients (30%) are probably free of infection, one patient died of PJI-associated sepsis, and five patients were free of infection, but without restoration of the affected joint.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our own results show that perimegaprosthetic joint infection among silver-coated implants, in patients undergoing tumor-related surgery of the lower limb, is lower compared to non-silver-coated implants. Due to heterogeneity of patients and potential treatment options, the treatment regime should be tailored for the patients' individual situation.

Risk Factors for Perimegaprosthetic Infections After Tumor Resection

Periprosthetic joint infection remains one of the most challenging and pervasive complications following megaprosthetic replacement after tumor resection. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature for clinical studies that reported a risk factor analysis for perimegaprosthetic joint infections. The search included English-language studies published up to July 2015. Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Identified factors mostly related to both surgical procedure and hospitalization. Physicians should consider these results when discussing the outcomes of limb salvage surgery with patients and trying to reduce the overall burden of perimegaprosthetic joint infections. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(1):e11-e16.].

[Management of complications in megaprostheses]

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses are frequently used after segmental resection of bone sarcomas, bone metastases, and in large osseous defects in revision arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of the most common complications associated the use of megaprostheses are reported. The management of complications including therapeutic recommendations are described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current knowledge and our own experience of complication management with the use of megaprostheses are presented.

RESULTS

Prospective, randomized studies or meta-analyses on this topic are lacking. An analysis of the literature shows that beside the occurrence of a local recurrence, periprosthetic infection remains the most serious complication. Two-stage revision remains the gold standard, but a single-stage exchange of the prosthesis without removing the stems might be possible in selected cases. Infection is associated with a higher risk of secondary amputation. In contrast, mechanical failures (e.g., wear of the bushings in knee replacements and aseptic loosening of the stems) can be treated more easily. Dislocation of a proximal femur replacement can mostly be prevented by using bi- or tripolar cups.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications with the use of megaprostheses can be successfully treated by revision surgery in most cases.

The use of megaprostheses for reconstruction of large skeletal defects in the extremities: a critical review

In the case of primary malignant tumors, extensive metastatic disease, major trauma or end-stage revision arthroplasty, the orthopaedic surgeon often has to deal with the need to reconstruct large skeletal defects, or replace bone of low quality. In the past years this was frequently impossible, and the only solution was amputation of the extremity. Later, the introduction of custom-made endoprostheses capable of reconstructing large skeletal defects, also known as megaprostheses, allowed for sparing of the extremity. This was especially valuable in the case of oncologic orthopaedic surgery, as advances in the medical treatment of sarcoma patients improved prognosis and limb-preserving surgery proved to have comparable patient survival rates to amputation. However, custom-made designs were implicated in frequent mechanical failures. Furthermore, they were extremely difficult to revise.

The introduction of modular endoprostheses in the 1980s marked a new era in orthopaedic oncologic surgery. Modular megaprostheses consist of a number of different components in readily available sets, which can be assembled in various combinations to best address the specific bone defect. Moreover, they proved to have considerably lower rate of mechanical failures, which were also much easier to address during revision surgery by replacing only the parts that failed. The functional outcome after reconstruction with megasprostheses is often very satisfactory and the patient can enjoy a good quality of life. Nowadays, the major challenge is to eliminate the rate of non-mechanical complications associated with surgery of that magnitude, namely the risk for wound dehiscence and necrosis, deep infection, as well as local recurrence of the tumor.

In our present mini-review, we attempt to make a critical approach of the available literature, focusing on the multiple aspects of reconstructive surgery using megaprostheses. We present the evolution of megasprosthetic implants, the indications for their use, and describe the outcome of surgery, so that the non-specialized orthopedic surgeon also becomes familiar with that kind of surgery which is usually performed in tertiary centers. A special interest lays in the recent developments that promise for even better results and fewer complications.