Why Reintervention After Total Knee Arthroplasty Fails? A Consecutive Cohort of 1170 Surgeries

Risk of Infection After Septic and Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The causes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure can be divided into septic and aseptic etiologies. It is unclear whether the etiology affects the infection rate after revision TKA. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate whether there is a difference in infection rates between septic and aseptic revision TKA. We hypothesized that infection rates would be higher after septic revision TKA.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched to find studies evaluating infection rates following septic and aseptic revision TKA. We included studies that compared the postoperative infection rates of a group that received revision TKA for aseptic failure and a group that received 1- or 2-stage revision TKA for septic failure. Studies on re-revision TKA and on revision surgery after partial knee arthroplasty were excluded, as were studies of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR).

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this systematic review. In studies in which 1- or 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, septic revision TKA had a significantly higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (odds ratio [OR], 6.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54 to 30.33; p = 0.01). Similarly, in studies in which 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, septic revision TKA had a significantly higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.33 to 7.36; p < 0.00001). In the comparison of revision TKA for aseptic loosening and septic revision TKA, septic revision TKA had a higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.28 to 8.70; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, septic revision TKA had a higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA. Even when 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, the infection rate was higher after septic revision TKA than after aseptic revision. Surgeons should explain the relatively high infection rates to patients undergoing revision TKA for septic failure of their primary joint replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Kinematic Alignment of Failed Mechanically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty Restored Constitutional Limb Alignment and Improved Clinical Outcomes: A Case Report of 7 Patients

Background: Stiffness and mid-flexion instability (MFI) is a recognized complication of mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Kinematic alignment (KA) has been proposed as a means by which to restore normal joint motion following TKA and potentially avoid stiffness and MFI. Several studies have documented improved function with KA when compared to MA. The aim of this study was to determine if revising MA TKAs failed for either MFI or stiffness into KA resolves MFI, achieves better range of motion, and improves clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective, single surgeon review was performed. All consecutive TKAs revised from MA into KA for MFI (def: >5 mm opening between 10° and 45° of flexion) or stiffness (def: flexion ≤90°) between January 2017 and May 2021 were included. The constitutional limb alignment of the operated knee was “reverse engineered” by measuring the coronal alignment of the contralateral healthy knee or pre-operative x-rays. Femoral Rotation was set at 3 degrees internal to the trans epicondylar axis. All coronal and sagittal angles were digitally measured on pre- and post-operative long leg and maximum flexion radiographs (minimum 12 month follow-up). The Knee Society Score (KSS) and range of motion assessments were collected preoperatively and at final follow-up. Comparisons between groups were done with a paired T test. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Seven patients were included. Two were male, the mean age was 70.1 years (±9.3), mean follow-up was 32 months (±26). Three patients were revised for MFI and 4 for stiffness. Constitutional limb alignment was restored within 2 degrees for all patients. The mean total KSS gain was 65.9 (±18.1). The total KSS was significantly improved in all patients (p < 0.001). The mean maximum flexion gain was 30 deg (±23°) (p = 0.01). MFI was absent in all patients. Conclusion: In a limited series of patients, revision of stiff or unstable TKA from MA to KA resulted in improved range of motion by 30° on averages, resolved instability without the use of constrained liners, improved clinical outcomes with a mean gain of 75 points on the KSS, and restored constitutional limb alignment within 2 degrees in all patients. As these short term results are promising, further study is warranted.

Similar outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty achievable for aseptic revision using the same primary posterior-stabilised prosthesis at a mean follow-up of 49 months

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between primary and aseptic revision TKAs using the same posterior-stabilised (PS) prosthesis. The authors hypothesised similar outcomes between both groups for selected patients.

METHODS

This retrospective, case-control study assessed 36 patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA compared to a match group of 72 primary TKA. Both groups had the same PS design implant (ANATOMIC®, Amplitude, Valence, France). The International Knee Society (IKS) score, radiological outcomes (postoperative alignment, patellar tilt and radiolucent lines), re-intervention and revision rate were compared between the two groups with a minimum follow-up of 3 years.

RESULTS

The final study cohort included 29 patients and 63 patients respectively in the revision and primary group, with a mean follow-up of 49.1 months (range 36.1-69). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in IKS scores between the two groups [169.8 for the revision group and 179.6 for the primary group (p = 0.09)]. No statistical difference was observed for post-operative satisfaction 86.2% versus 92.1% (p = 0.46). Between the two groups, there was no difference in mean radiological assessment, including radiolucent lines (p = 0.7). There was no significant difference for overall implant survivorship 96.5% versus 100% (p = 0.13) at 36 months.

CONCLUSION

Similar clinical, radiological and survivorship outcomes were found between rTKA and primary TKA groups using the same PS level of constraint in patients undergoing revision surgery for aseptic indications at 3-year follow-up. Use of PS implants in rTKA for the correct indication suggests this to be a safe approach at least in the medium term.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case-control study.

Similar kinematic patterns between revision total stabilized (TS) and primary posterior stabilized (PS) knee prostheses: a prospective case-controlled study with gait assessment

PURPOSE

There are increased surgical considerations when revising total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in active patients. Few studies have assessed if a semi-constrained [Total Stabilized (TS)] prostheses has similar knee biomechanics to a primary posterior stabilized (PS) prosthesis. The aim was to compare the gait parameters in patients with PS or TS TKA and normal controls.

METHODS

32 patients with TKA were prospectively included with either a primary PS (n = 15) or a revision TS (n = 17) prosthesis. Gait analysis was performed at 6 months postoperatively for each patient, with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®) assessing the displacement of the tibia relative to the femur during the different gait phases (flexion/extension, anterior/posterior translation, adduction/abduction, internal/external rotation). A control group (n = 12) of healthy knees was compared with the TKA groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant kinematic differences between PS and TS groups. The maximum knee flexion during gait was 53° ± 8.1° in the PS group vs 52° ± 8.7° in the TS group. The antero-posterior translation was similar in both group (2.3 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.6 ± 0.9 mm, respectively). Peak varus angle during loading and swing phase was slightly higher in the TS group (2.7° ± 0.7° and 5.2° ± 0.9°) than in the PS group (2.9° ± 0.6° and 5.6° ± 1.2°), without significant difference. The ranges in internal/external rotation were similar between PS and TS TKA (3.7° ± 0.5° vs 3.3° ± 0.6°, respectively). Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group except in the frontal plane.

CONCLUSION

Single radius TS TKA has gait parameters similar to single radius PS TKA. Use of a single radius TS TKA in revision TKA is not detrimental to a patient's gait pattern. Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective, case-control study; Level III.

Cement Loaded With High-Dose Gentamicin and Clindamycin Reduces the Risk of Subsequent Infection After One-Stage Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Exchange for Periprosthetic Infection: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement for treating periprosthetic joint infections remains controversial. We hypothesized that the raw rate of surgical site infection (SSI) is lower after using cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin than after using cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin for implant fixation during 1-stage hip and knee revision arthroplasty for infection.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-one continuous patients operated by 2 experienced surgeons during a 2-year period were included in the study. All patients were followed for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time.

RESULTS

The raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time was significantly lower in the study group (13%) than in the control group (26%) (P = .03) with an odds ratio of 0.42 (P = .03). These SSIs were new infections rather than a recurrence/persistence of the initial infection.

CONCLUSION

The cement used in the study group significantly reduced the risk of SSI relative to the cement used in the control group. Routine use of this high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement can be considered during 1-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty for infection.

Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Background

Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA?

Methods

Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis).

Results

Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions).

Conclusion

The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

Condylar constrained knee prosthesis and rotating hinge prosthesis for revision total knee arthroplasty for mechanical failure have not the same indications and same results

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and complication rates between condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinge knee (RHK) prostheses used for the first revision of total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) after mechanical failure. Methods: Sixty-three consecutive non-septic revisions of posterior stabilized implants using 33 CCK and 30 RHK prostheses were included. Clinical evaluation and revision rate were compared between the two groups at two years minimum follow-up. Results: The CCK group had significantly better clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates compared to patients with RHK (KSS-knee 70.5 versus 60.7 (p < 0.003) and KSS-function 74.9 versus 47.7 (p < 0.004) at 3.7 (2.0–9.4) years mean follow-up. Moreover, the clinical improvement was significantly higher for the CCK group concerning the KSS-Knee (+23.9 vs. +15.2 points, p = 0.03). The postoperative flexion was significantly better in the CCK group compared to the RHK group (115° vs. 103°, p = 0.01). The prosthesis-related complications and the re-revision rate were higher in the RHK group, especially due to patellofemoral complications and mechanical failures. Conclusions: CCK prostheses provided better clinical and functional outcomes and fewer complications than RHK prostheses when used for the first non-septic rTKA. CCK is a safe and effective implant for selected patients, while RHK should be used with caution as a salvage device for complex knee conditions, with particular attention to the balance of the extensor mechanism.

Recent trends in revision knee arthroplasty in Germany

We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision knee arthroplasty procedures develop in Germany over the last decade compared to primary TKA? (2) How high was the percentage of septic interventions in knee prosthesis revisions? (3) Which treatment strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of knee PJI? Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). In 2018, a total number 23,812 revision knee arthroplasties were performed in Germany, yielding an overall increase of 20.76% between 2008 and 2018. In comparison, primary TKA procedures increased by 23.8% from 152,551 performed procedures in 2008 to 188,866 procedures in 2018. Hence, 12.6% of knee arthroplasties required a revision in 2018. Septic interventions increased by 51.7% for all revisions. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Compared to 2008, 17.41% less DAIR procedures were performed, whereby single-stage and two- or multi-stage change increased by 38.76% and 42.76% in 2018, respectively. The increasing number of revision knee arthroplasty in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

Antibiotics in Bone Cements Used for Prosthesis Fixation: An Efficient Way to Prevent Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis Prosthetic Joint Infection

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are one of the most frequent reasons for arthroplasty revision. These infections are mostly associated with the formation of biofilm, notably by staphylococci, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. To minimize the rates of PJIs following primary or revision total joint arthroplasty, antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) can be used for prosthesis fixation. However, its use is still debated. Indeed, various studies reported opposite results. In this context, we aimed to compare the prophylactic anti-biofilm activity of ALBCs loaded with two antibiotics with ALBC loaded with only one antibiotic. We compared commercial ready-to-use cements containing gentamicin alone, gentamicin plus vancomycin, and gentamicin plus clindamycin to plain cement (no antibiotic), investigating staphylococcal biofilm formation for 10 strains of S. aureus and S. epidermidis with specific resistance to gentamicin, vancomycin, or clindamycin. Firstly, we performed disk diffusion assays with the elution solutions. We reported that only the cement containing gentamicin and clindamycin was able to inhibit bacterial growth at Day 9, whereas cements with gentamicin only or gentamicin and vancomycin lost their antibacterial activity at Day 3. Then, we observed that all the tested ALBCs can inhibit biofilm formation by methicillin-susceptible staphylococci without other antibiotic resistance ability. Similar results were observed when we tested vancomycin-resistant or clindamycin-resistant staphylococci, with some strain-dependent significant increase of efficacy for the two antibiotic ALBCs when compared with gentamicin-loaded cement. However, adding vancomycin or clindamycin to gentamicin allows a better inhibition of biofilm formation when gentamicin-resistant strains were used. Our in vitro results suggest that using commercially available bone cements loaded with gentamicin plus vancomycin or clindamycin for prosthesis fixation can help in preventing staphylococcal PJIs following primary arthroplasties, non-septic revisions or septic revisions, especially to prevent PJIs caused by gentamicin-resistant staphylococci.