Staged Revision With Antibiotic Spacers for Shoulder Prosthetic Joint Infections Yields High Infection Control

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.

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.

Transcutaneous compression suture with iodine gauze for wound closure in revision surgery for therapy-resistant periprosthetic shoulder infections

Background

To successfully treat a periprosthetic infection, successful bacteria eradication and successful wound closure are mandatory. Despite adequate surgical débridement in the deep, persistence of wound drainage and subsequent persistence of periprosthetic infection may occur, especially in patients with compromised soft tissue conditions. This study presents a transcutaneous compression suture technique with iodine gauze that was used in patients with persistent wound secretion in therapy-resistant periprosthetic shoulder infections in order to achieve successful infection control and wound healing.

Methods

All patients with persistent periprosthetic or implant-associated shoulder joint infections despite correct previous surgical and antibiotic therapy attempts were included in the study. In all patients, in addition to repeat deep surgical débridement, a transcutaneous "iodine-gauze-compression-suture" was performed with postoperative antibiotic therapy. The primary endpoint was infection control; the secondary endpoint was wound healing rate; and the third endpoint was complication rate after index surgery.

Results

Ten consecutive patients with a mean age of 74 (±7.6) years and a mean follow-up of 14 (±2) months were included. All ten patients showed infection control and successful wound healing, with no need for further revision surgery. In 8 out of 10 patients, the wound healing was fast and completely uncomplicated. Two out of 10 patients showed delayed wound healing with fibrin coatings for 3 and 4 weeks, respectively. No additional intervention was necessary in both patients.

Conclusions

Transcutaneous iodine gauze compression sutures were used to achieve successful infection control without additional revision surgery in 10 out of 10 patients who previously underwent surgery with failed infection control. This wound closure technique is a reliable adjunctive therapy method in the treatment of implant-associated infections of the shoulder in patients with fragile wound conditions.

Management of periprosthetic joint infection of shoulder arthroplasty: Single-stage versus two-stage protocols. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background

The treatment of shoulder prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) requiring removal of the prosthesis is not well defined. This article aims to systematically review and compare the results of the literature in single-stage and two-stage protocols in the treatment of shoulder PJI.

Methods

An in-depth search on PubMed/Scopus/Web of Science databases and cross-referencing search was carried out concerning the articles reporting detailed data on the topic.

Results

A total of 486 shoulder PJIs were included: 137 treated with single-stage and 349 with two-stage procedure. A similar distribution between early and not-early infections (19.1% vs 80.9%) was found between the two groups. The overall rate of success in terms of PJI eradication was significantly higher in the single-stage group (95.6% vs 85.7%, p < 0.001). The non-infection-related complications rate was 13.8% in the single-stage group and 37.6% in the two-stage group (p < 0.001), the non-infection-related revision rate was 8% and 18.9%, respectively (p = 0.005).

Discussion

The single-phase protocol showed a higher success rate in eradicating the infection and a lower complication rate. However, the low number of patients included, the low quality of the articles, the lack of data on clinical severity and bacteriological virulence suggest caution in conclusions.

Patient-specific articulating spacer for two-stage shoulder arthroplasty exchange

OBJECTIVE

Two-stage exchange with an antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer is standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder. We present a safe and simple technique for patient-specific spacer implants.

INDICATION

(Chronic) periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder.

RELATIVE CONTRAINDICATIONS

Known allergy against components of PMMA bone cements. Inadequate compliance for two-stage exchange. Patient is unfit to undergo two-stage exchange.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Hardware removal, histologic and microbiologic samples, and debridement. Preparation of targeted or calculated antibiotic-loaded PMMA. Tailoring of patient-specific spacer. Spacer implantation.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Rehabilitation protocol. Antibiotic treatment. Reimplantation after successful eradication of infection.

Comparison of surgical treatment options in periprosthetic shoulder infections: a systematic review from 2016 to 2022

Background

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) management proves to be challenging because of patient morbidity, poor outcomes and need for reoperations. Different surgical treatment methods have been defined; however, a prominent method could not be determined. This systematic review investigated the most recent articles about various treatment modalities used in the surgical treatment of PSI to find the most effective method in terms of infection clearance and function.

Methods

The keywords were searched using PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), and Google Scholar databases on September 30, 2022. Studies which report on operative treatment and have longer than 2-year follow-up were included in this review. Of the 555 studies in total, 16 were reviewed. The absence of symptomatic persistent infection (PI) during follow-up was regarded as a satisfactory outcome. Functional outcomes were analyzed according to the reported mean pooled Constant and Murley Score (CMS) and shoulder forward elevation degree (FE) for each treatment group.

Results

A total of 339 patients (139 female, 197 male) with 342 shoulders from sixteen studies were included. The mean age of the patients was 67.5±3.8 years, mean follow-up duration was 53.3±19.5 months. In total, 217 shoulders were treated with two-stage revision, 59 were treated with one-stage revision, 37 were treated with definitive spacer, 23 were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), and 6 were treated with resection arthroplasty. The PI rate in whole treatment groups was 9.9%. The PI rate was significantly highest in the DAIR group (30.4%, P=0.001), while there was no significant difference between other treatment groups (P=0.23). CMS and FE were available for 156 and 190 shoulders, respectively. CMS was highest in the one-stage revision group (63.4±5.9, P=0.001), and FE was highest in the DAIR group (119.3°±28.5°, P=0.001).

Conclusions

The revision surgeries (one-stage and two-stage revision) were more effective than the non-revision surgeries in functional outcomes. In terms of infection clearance, revision procedures were more successful. Surgeons should prefer revision methods over non-revision procedures when feasible.

[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.

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

PURPOSE

Infection represents probably the most challenging complication in shoulder arthroplasty and all other surgical procedures of the shoulder. A deep infection of the shoulder is often combined with a destruction of the joint and a loss of function. In many cases the arthroplasty is the last resort for these patients to obtain a satisfactory function. The objective of this study was to determine outcome data on microbiota and clinical results of a two-stage shoulder arthroplasty procedure after deep infection of the shoulder.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with a deep shoulder infection after arthroplasty, osteosynthesis, or rotator-cuff repair were included, while two patients had an empyema without prior surgery. All underwent initial surgical debridement with implantation of an antibiotic-loaded spacer, followed by postoperative systemic antibiotics. The patients obtained definitive shoulder arthroplasty in a second surgery. None of the patients had to undergo more than two surgeries before the arthroplasty. The follow-up analysis including microbiota results, complication rates, and functional outcomes could be determined after at least 1 year in 60% of patients (n = 16).

RESULTS

The most frequently detected microorganisms were S. epidermidis (31%, n = 10) and Cutibacterium acnes (19%, n = 6). In 28% (n = 9) of cases multi-drug resistant bacteria were detected and in 35% (n = 8) of cases more than one microorganism was found. The overall revision rate was 42%, 11 of 26 patients, in the first 8 weeks after arthroplasty. Reasons for revision were joint dislocations in 23% (n = 6), 15% (n = 4) postoperative hematomas, one (4%) re-infection and one (4%) periprosthetic fracture. At follow-up after 19.3 ± 5.5 months postoperatively, a mean abduction of 113.4°, anteversion of 122.8° and external rotation of 14° was found, with an average age and gender-adjusted Constant Score of the affected shoulder of 63. The subjects' pain and impairment in normal life measured by a questionnaire with school grades were significantly reduced (p < 0.05) as compared to prior shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The most relevant bacteria in the study cohort were Staphylococcus subspecies and to a lower extent Cutibacterium acnes. A high number of multi-drug resistant and mixed microbiota spectra were detected, defining a need to adapt therapeutic regimen targeting these microbiotas. The two-stage shoulder arthroplasty after a deep infection resulted in excellent infection control with however high early postoperative rates for joint dislocation (23%) and hematomas (15%). At follow-up a stable joint was achieved with a sufficient functional outcome and satisfying outcome for activities of daily living and pain.

CLINICAL TRIAL

Trial registration number: DRKS00016927, date of registration: 2019/03/19.

Antibiotic Spacers for Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Review

Periprosthetic joint infection is a rare but potentially devastating complication of shoulder arthroplasty. The most conservative treatment approach is a two-stage revision involving interval placement of an antibiotic cement spacer. The purpose of this study was to contextualize the use of antibiotic spacers in the current treatment paradigm of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection and to review the history of shoulder spacers, the different types (eg, stemmed versus stemless and prefabricated versus handmade), the antibiotic composition and dosage, and their efficacy and complications.

Short-term outcomes of two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for shoulder infection

Background

The purpose of our study was to investigate short-term outcomes of two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for shoulder infection.

Methods

Eleven patients with shoulder infection were treated by two-stage RTSA following temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer. Of the 11 shoulders, nine had pyogenic arthritis combined with complex conditions such as recurrent infection, extensive osteomyelitis, osteoarthritis, or massive rotator cuff tear and two had periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The mean follow-up period was 29.9 months (range, 12–48 months) after RTSA. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, subjective shoulder value (SSV), and serial plain radiographs.

Results

The mean time from antibiotic-loaded cement spacer to RTSA was 9.2 months (range, 1–35 months). All patients had no clinical and radiographic signs of recurrent infection at final follow-up. The mean final VAS score, ASES score, and SSV were significantly improved from 4.5, 38.6, and 29.1% before RTSA to 1.7, 75.1, and 75.9% at final follow-up, respectively. The mean forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation were improved from 50.0°, 50.9°, 17.7°, and sacrum level before RTSA to 127.3°, 110.0°, 51.8°, and L2 level at final follow-up, respectively.

Conclusions

Two-stage RTSA with antibiotic-loaded cement spacer yields satisfactory short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. In patients with pyogenic arthritis combined with complex conditions or PJI, two-stage RTSA with an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer would be a successful approach to eradicate infection and to improve function with pain relief.

Outcomes after resection arthroplasty versus permanent antibiotic spacer for salvage treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although revision to new components is favored after shoulder periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), implant exchange is not always feasible. In certain cases, definitive treatment may be retainment of an antibiotic spacer or resection arthroplasty. The purpose of this investigation was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting on outcomes after resection arthroplasty or permanent antibiotic spacer for salvage treatment of shoulder PJIs.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for Level I-IV studies that reported on the final treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infections using resection arthroplasty or a permanent antibiotic spacer. Data recorded included study demographics, causative infectious organism, shoulder-specific range of motion and outcome measures, and infection eradication rate. Study methodological quality was analyzed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. Forest plots of proportions and meta-analyses of single means were generated for infection eradication rates and outcomes, respectively. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. A P value of .05 was set as significant.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 635 articles (211 duplicates, 424 screened, 57 full-text review). Twenty-three articles (126 resection arthroplasty and 177 retained antibiotic spacer patients, 51% females, mean age range 37-78.5 years, mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score 9.6 ± 0.7) were included and analyzed. The pooled infection eradication rate was 82% (72%-89%) after resection arthroplasty and 85% (79%-90%) after permanent antibiotic spacer. The pooled mean forward flexion (71.5° vs. 48.7°; P < .001) and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (53.5 vs. 31.0; P < .001) were significantly higher for patients treated with a permanent antibiotic spacer compared with resection arthroplasty. No significant differences were found for mean external rotation (13.5° vs. 20.5°; P = .07), abduction (58.2° vs. 50.3°; P = .27), or visual analog scale pain (3.7 vs. 3.4; P = .24) between groups. There was a statistically significant, but not clinically significant, difference in mean Constant score between permanent antibiotic spacer and resection arthroplasty patients (33.6 vs. 30.0; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

When implant exchange after shoulder PJI is not feasible, permanent antibiotic spacers and resection arthroplasty are both salvage procedures that provide similar rates of infection eradication. Although both can decrease pain levels, the permanent antibiotic spacer may result in better functional outcomes compared with resection arthroplasty.

Spacers for life: high mortality rate associated with definitive treatment of shoulder periprosthetic infection with permanent antibiotic spacer

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection following shoulder arthroplasty represents a challenging problem for orthopedic surgeons. Although recent studies have supported 2-stage exchanges, this treatment choice may not be appropriate for all patients. Definitive antibiotic spacer placement represents one treatment strategy with limited reported outcomes in the literature. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mortality rate and functional outcomes associated with definitive spacer placement.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified 17 patients who were treated with definitive antibiotic spacer placement (18 spacers) and were followed up for a minimum of 2 years after surgery. The mortality rate over the study period was determined. Demographic information, clinical course, patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Veterans RAND 12 [VR-12] score), infection parameters as defined by International Consensus Meeting criteria, radiographic evaluation findings, and rotator cuff integrity at the time of spacer placement were collected.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent treatment with retained antibiotic spacers at a mean age of 62.4 years (range, 50-73 years). Ten patients were women, and the mean body mass index was 30.5 (range, 22.9-39.9). Spacer placement occurred at a mean of 6.1 years (range, 0.48-14.9 years) following index arthroplasty. Five patients required spacer exchange. The most common organisms were Cutibacterium acnes (6) and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (6); in addition, methicillin-resistant S aureus (2), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (2), Serratia marcescens (1), gram-positive cocci (1), Enterobacter faecalis (1), Enterobacter cloacae (1), diphtheroids (1), and an infection with negative culture findings (1) were observed. The mortality rate was 52.9% (9 of 17 patients). Among the 8 surviving patients, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 33.9 (range, 13.3-80.0), the mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 35.6 (range, 0.0-80.0), the mean VR-12 mental score was 57.2 (range, 36.6-66.9), and the mean VR-12 physical score was 37.1 (range, 21.7-64.0) at a mean of 4.7 years (range, 2.0-8.8 years).

CONCLUSION

Definitive antibiotic spacer placement is an acceptable method to treat infection in medically frail patients who have a high mortality risk. Spacer exchange may be necessary because of persistent infection, and functional results are poor.

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Is Associated with High Rate of Failure to Reimplant and Mortality

Background: Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the shoulder, who fail to undergo reimplantation in an attempted two-stage exchange seem to be neglected in the current literature. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical course of patients after the first stage in the process of an attempted two-stage exchange for shoulder PJI. Methods: After a retrospective review of our institutional database between 2008 and 2018, 49 patients, who were treated with an intended two-stage exchange for shoulder PJI, were identified. Patients’ demographics, laboratory and health status parameters, along with records of clinical outcome were collected. The primary outcome measurements analyzed were infection eradication, successful reimplantation, and patient survival. Results: Reimplantation was completed in only 35 (71%) of 49 cases and eradication of infection was achieved in 85.7% of patients with successful reimplantation after a mean follow-up duration of 5.1 years (1.1 to 10.2 years). Reasons for failure to reimplant were premature death in 36%, high general morbidity in 29%, satisfaction with the current status in 21%, or severe infection with poor bone and soft tissues in 14% of the patients. Of the 14 cases without reimplantation, eradication rate of infection was 57% after a mean follow-up of 5 years (2.6 to 11 years). The overall mortality rate of the entire cohort was 25% at the latest follow-up and 10% within ninety days after implant removal. Patients who deceased or did not undergo reimplantation during the follow-up were significantly older and had a significantly higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Conclusions: While the two-stage exchange arthroplasty can lead to high rates of infection eradication, a considerable subset of patients never undergoes the second stage for a variety of reasons. Shoulder PJI and its treatment are associated with a high risk of mortality, especially in patients with older age and higher CCI.

One Versus 2-Stage Revision for Shoulder Arthroplasty Infections: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Treatment Selection Bias

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the optimal treatment for infection following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the bias in treatment selection, infection clearance rates, and functional outcomes after 1 versus 2-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic shoulder infections.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in 4 phases. Articles were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Cochrane Library databases with Boolean search terms related to infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Included articles were analyzed for quality, and data were extracted for use. Preoperative treatment selection bias was analyzed and postoperative infection clearance rates and functional outcome scores were compared between 1 and 2-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic shoulder infection.

RESULTS

Overall, 163 1-stage shoulder procedures and 289 2-stage shoulder procedures were included in the analysis. Cutibacterium acnes was the organism most frequently grown on culture (37%) followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (19%). The overall infection clearance rate was 95.6% for 1-stage and 85.2% for 2-stage procedures. In a comparison of the change in outcome scores from preoperatively to postoperatively between 1-stage and 2-stage revision, the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) improved 21.0 points (1-stage) versus 22.8 points (2-stage), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score improved 26.2 points versus 33.6 points, and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score improved 3.5 points versus 6.4 points, respectively. Overall, 23 of 26 studies cited a reason for selection of a 1 versus 2-stage procedure, which was due to standard treatment protocol in 10 studies, based on the timing of the infection (acute versus subacute versus chronic) in 5, due to a combination of factors (age, comorbidities, intraoperative appearance, adequacy of debridement, bone loss) in 6, and due to preoperative identification of a specific organism in 2.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage revisions resulted in higher infection clearance rates; however, 2-stage revisions resulted in greater functional improvement as measured with ASES and SST scores from the preoperative assessment to the final postoperative follow-up. The decision between 1 and 2-stage revisions is due to a combination of factors including pathogen type, timing of infection, findings on the preoperative clinical examination, the patient's own decision, the surgeon's preference, and the intraoperative soft-tissue/osseous appearance, which may have biased the overall results. There is no consensus in the literature on the decision between 1 and 2-stage treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection, which is based on a combination of factors. However, both treatment strategies are effective in treating periprosthetic shoulder infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcome and complications following revision shoulder arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618-630.

Destination Joint Spacers: A Similar Infection-Relief Rate But Higher Complication Rate Compared with Two-Stage Revision

Objective

To evaluated the clinical outcomes of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) patients with destination joint spacer compared with that of two‐stage revision.

Methods

From January 2006 to December 2017, data of PJI patients who underwent implantation with antibiotic‐impregnated cement spacers in our center due to chronic PJI were collected retrospectively. The diagnosis of PJI was based on the American Society for Musculoskeletal Infection (MSIS) criteria for PJI. One of the following must be met for diagnosis of PJI: a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis; a pathogenis isolated by culture from two separate tissue or fluid samples obtained from the affected prosthetic joint; four of the following six criteria exist: (i) elevated ESR and CRP; (ii) elevate dsynovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count; (iii) elevated synovial fluid neutrophil percentage (PMN%); (iv) presence of purulence in the affected joint; (v) isolation of a microorganism in one periprosthetic tissue or fluid culture; (vi) more than five neutrophilsper high‐power fields in five high‐power fields observed from histological analysis of periprosthetic tissue at ×400 magnification. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and laboratory test results were recorded. All patients were followed up regularly after surgery, the infection‐relief rates were recorded, Harris hip score (HHS) and knee society score (KSS) were used for functional evaluation, a Doppler ultrasonography of the lower limb veins was performed for complication evaluation. The infection‐relief rates and complications were compared between destination joint spacer group and two‐stage revision group.

Results

A total of 62 patients who were diagnosed with chronic PJI were enrolled, with an age of 65.13 ± 9.94 (39–88) years. There were 21 cases in the destination joint spacer group and 41 cases in the temporary spacer group, namely, two‐stage revision group (reimplantation of prosthesis after infection relief). The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in the destination joint spacer group was higher than that in the temporary spacer group, and this might be the primary reason for joint spacer retainment. As for infection‐relief rate, there were three cases of recurrent infection (14.29%) in the destination joint spacer group and four cases of recurrent infection (9.76%) in the two‐stage revision group, there were no significant differences with regard to infection‐relief rate. Moreover, there two patients who suffered from spacer fractures, three cases of dislocation, one case of a periarticular fracture, and three cases of deep venous thrombosis in destination joint spacer group, while there was only one case of periprosthetic hip joint fracture, one case of dislocation, and one patient suffered from deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in two‐stage revision. The incidence of complications in the destination joint spacer group was higher than that of two‐stage revision.

Conclusions

In summary, the present work showed that a destination joint spacer might be provided as a last resort for certain PJI patients due to similar infection‐relief rate compared with two‐stage revision.

Periprosthetic Infection After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Periprosthetic infection is a relatively rare but potentially devastating complication after shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this article is to review the incidence, diagnosis, prevention, and management of periprosthetic infections after reverse shoulder arthroplasty, with a focus on literature published within the last 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

The 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection provides us with a framework for the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic infections after shoulder arthroplasty. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher reported rate of infection compared with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Our current diagnostic tests do not appear to be as sensitive when compared with the hip and knee literature. Similar success has been reported with single and two-stage revision protocols, although prospective comparative data are lacking. The significance of unexpected positive cultures during revision arthroplasty remains unclear. We report current diagnostic and therapeutic options for periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Much of the current literature does not distinguish between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Further high-level studies are warranted to refine these definitions and guide management.

Infection control and outcome of staged reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of shoulder infections

Background

The treatment of septic arthritis, caused by either hematogenous seeding, injections, or surgery, can be challenging. Staged reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with temporary implantation of an antibiotic-loaded spacer is widely accepted but still discussed controversially. This study investigated the shoulder-specific bacterial spectrum, infection control rate, functional outcome, and infection-free survival rate after staged RSA in the mid- to long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that staged RSA would show a high infection-free survival rate.

Methods

A total of 39 patients treated with staged RSA for primary septic arthritis (n = 8), secondary infection (n = 8), or periprosthetic infection (n = 23) were retrospectively included. The infection control rate was calculated based on cultures taken intraoperatively at spacer removal and RSA implantation. Infection-free survival was defined as no revision due to infection. The minimum follow-up period for functional outcome assessment was 2 years (n = 14; mean, 76 months; range, 31-128 months).

Results

Cutibacterium (26%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (23%) were the predominant pathogens. The infection control rate was 90%. The cumulative infection-free survival rate was 91% after 128 months. Follow-up examinations showed a mean Constant score of 48 (range, 7-85), a mean QuickDASH (short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) score of 40.0 (range, 11.4-93.3), and a mean pain score of 1.6 (range, 0-7).

Conclusion

Staged RSA implantation was confirmed to be a reliable treatment option for primary, secondary, and periprosthetic infections of the shoulder. The infection control rate and infection-free survival rate are satisfactory. However, patients and surgeons must be aware of functional impairment even after successful treatment of infections.

Permanent Spacers Are a Reliable Solution for Peri-prosthetic Shoulder Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Peri-prosthetic shoulder infection (PSI), a highly disabling complication of shoulder arthroplasty, often requires additional surgery and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Of strategies proposed to manage this devastating condition, the use of cement spacers, perhaps even as a definitive treatment, is debated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to systematically review the literature on antibiotic-loaded cement spacers as a viable, perhaps definitive, treatment for PSI, evaluating the eradication rates, mechanical reliability, and functional results related to its use.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies published from January 1, 1980, through September 1, 2019. Following the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, we searched for studies reporting functional and clinical outcomes in patients with PSI treated with a permanent spacer of the shoulder. Two independent reviewers searched eight databases, as well as reference lists of the retrieved articles.

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria were applied, 12 studies were included, involving a total of 143 patients. The mean age was 65.8 years; the mean follow-up was 37.4 months. A total of 133 patients (93%) were free from infection at latest follow-up. The mean post-operative active elevation of the shoulder ranged from 48.6 to 90°, the mean abduction ranged from 51 to 75°, and external rotation ranged from 3.6 to 29°. The mean Constant-Murley score ranged from 20.6 to 42 points (out of 100, from worst to best).

CONCLUSION

The use of a permanent cement spacer is a reliable solution to PSI in low-demand, older patients with comorbidities, a population in whom it is desirable to avoid additional surgery. Our review found a high rate of infection eradication and moderate-to-good objective and subjective results. However, the overall level of evidence of included studies was very low, and higher-quality studies are needed to clarify the role of permanent spacers in the treatment of PSI.

Little benefit of surgical anchor and suture removal and of antibiotic therapy beyond 6 weeks in infected rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of surgical anchor and/or suture removal and prolonged antibiotic therapy in acute and chronic infections of rotator cuff repair (RCIs).

METHODS

A single-center cohort and case-control study (Cox regression) was performed. Outcome variables were remission of infection and postinfection reoperations due to failed tendon healing for mechanical causes. All analyses were performed with an emphasis on anchor and suture retention or removal.

RESULTS

We identified 54 primary RCIs (44 men; median age 54 years) that were surgically revised (10 by open débridement and 44 by arthroscopy). Twenty-eight (52%) were not intact on revision surgery (débridement) - 10 were partially and 18 totally re-ruptured. The median number of surgical revisions was 1 (range, 1-3), and the median duration of postsurgical antibiotic therapy was 75 days. After a minimal follow-up of 2 years, 8 infections (8/54, 15%) recurred. Twenty patients needed a revision surgery; in all of those 20 patients, intraoperative samples were negative for infection. By multivariate analysis, anchor removal at the first revision influenced neither remission (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.0) nor the need for later revision surgery due to mechanical sequelae (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.1-1.4). The corresponding HRs for suture removal were 0.9 (95% CI 0.4-1.7) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-1.2). Likewise, the numbers of revision surgery (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.3) and antibiotics beyond 6 weeks failed to influence remission (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4-3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In our RCI cohort, the removal of anchors or sutures, repeated revision surgery, or an antibiotic therapy beyond 6 weeks failed to improve remission or to reduce sequelae.

Salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures in patients younger than 60 years: long-term results

HYPOTHESIS

Is salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) a justifiable treatment for failed operative treatment (open reduction-internal fixation [ORIF] or primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty) of proximal humeral fractures in patients younger than 60 years?

METHODS

Thirty patients (mean age, 52 years; age range, 30-59 years) were reviewed after a mean follow-up period of 11 years (range, 8-18 years). Of the patients, 7 (23%) underwent RTSA for failed ORIF and 23 (77%) for failed hemiarthroplasty. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed longitudinally.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, the mean relative Constant score had improved from 25% (±12%) to 58% (±21%, P < .001). Significant improvements were seen in the mean Subjective Shoulder Value (20% to 56%), active elevation (45° to 106°), abduction (42° to 99°), pain scores, and strength (P < .001). Clinical outcomes did not significantly deteriorate over a period of 10 years. Patients with salvage RTSA for failed secondary hemiarthroplasty (n = 8) vs. those for failed ORIF (n = 6) showed significantly inferior active abduction (77° vs. 116°, P = .023). Patients with a healed greater tuberosity (n = 9) showed significantly better external rotation than patients with a resorbed/resected greater tuberosity (n = 13, 21° vs. 3°, P = .025). One or more complications occurred in 18 shoulders (60%), and 6 (20%) resulted in explantation of the RTSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage RTSA in patients younger than 60 years is associated with a high complication rate. It leads nonetheless to substantial and durable improvement beyond 10 years, provided the complications can be handled with implant retention. Inferior shoulder function is associated with greater tuberosity resorption or resection and inferior overhead elevation with the diagnosis of failed hemiarthroplasty.

Periprosthetic Infections of the Shoulder: Diagnosis and Management

The use of shoulder arthroplasty is continuing to expand. Periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder is a devastating complication occurring in approximately 1% of cases. The most common organisms responsible for the infection are Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes) (∼39%) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (∼29%). Evaluation of patients includes history and physical examination, serologic testing, imaging, possible joint aspiration, and tissue culture. Diagnosing infections caused by lower virulence organisms (eg, C acnes) poses a challenge to the surgeon because traditional diagnostic tests (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and joint aspiration) have a low sensitivity due to the lack of an inflammatory response. Periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder due to Staphylococcus aureus and other highly virulent organisms are often easy to diagnose and are usually treated with two-stage revisions. However, for infections with C acnes and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, single- and two-stage revision surgeries have shown similar ability to clear the infection. Unexpected positive cultures for C acnes during revision surgery are not uncommon; the proper management is still under investigation and remains a challenge.

An Anatomic Intraoperatively Prepared Antibiotic Spacer in Two-Stage Shoulder Reimplantation for Deep Infection: The Potential for Early Rehabilitation

Molded antibiotic shoulder spacers allow for intraoperative customization of antibiotics and multiple size options. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an anatomic intraoperatively molded spacer in the two-stage treatment of infection and to assess the safety of early rehabilitation when the capsule and rotator cuff are present. During 2014 and 2015, 27 shoulders were treated with a molded antibiotic cement spacer as part of a two-stage treatment. Indications included periprosthetic joint infection (n=18), native shoulder infection (n=8), and infection after internal fixation (n=1). All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Mean follow-up time was 29.6 months. Patients were allowed to perform motion exercises (group I; n=16) or were instructed to avoid motion (group II; n=11) after spacer implantation, depending on the condition of their rotator cuff. Infection was eradicated in 23 of the 27 shoulders (85%). At most recent follow-up, pain scores were lower in group I. Mean final elevation was 115° in group I compared with 93° in group II. Mean final active external rotation was 36°, with no difference between the groups. In 3 (4%) shoulders with significant proximal humeral bone loss, the spacer became rotationally unstable. An anatomic intraoperatively molded spacer can be implanted safely in two-stage treatment for deep infection and has a reasonable rate of eradication. When adequate capsule and rotator cuff tissue is present, early motion in between stages can be safely recommended with a trend toward improved forward elevation at final follow-up and may facilitate the second stage reimplantation. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(4):211-218.].

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: management of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. A multidisciplinary team of international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology was assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The following consensus proceedings from the International Consensus Meeting involve 30 questions pertaining to the management of periprosthetic shoulder infection.