Survival and Outcomes of 1.5-Stage vs 2-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Prosthetic Joint Infection

Use of 1.5-Stage Functional Articulating Hip Spacers for Two-Stage Treatment of Hip Infection

BACKGROUND

A two-stage treatment is commonly used for chronic hip infections. This study compared the clinical efficacy and complications associated with 1.5-stage functional articulating hip spacers (FAHS) and handmade spacers utilized during two-stage treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 50 patients who had hip infections, of which 41 were periprosthetic joint infections, 3 were internal fixation infections, and 6 had septic arthritis. They were divided into two groups according to the spacer type: 23 patients treated with handmade spacers comprising 1 to 2 Kirschner wires as an endoskeleton (group A) and 27 patients treated with 1.5-stage FAHS comprising a cemented femoral stem, metal femoral head, and polyethylene acetabular liner or cemented acetabular cup (group B). Clinical characteristics, surgical data, infection control rate, spacer complications, modified Harris hip, visual analog scale, and 36-item short-form physical functioning scale scores were compared between the groups. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after the last surgical procedure.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the infection eradication rate between the two groups (100 versus 96.30%, P = 1.0). The incidence of mechanical complications, especially spacer fracture, was significantly lower in group B than in group A (P = .044). Hip function and quality of life were significantly better in group B during the interim period. Group B patients had a longer interval time (median 7.40 versus 4.30 months, P = .004) and a lower reimplantation rate than group A patients (42.31 versus 82.61%, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5-stage FAHS surgical technique is feasible for the treatment of hip infection, with a lower mechanical complication rate, better hip function, and better quality of life during the interim period compared to that of handmade spacers. The 1.5-stage FAHS with maintained function could delay or negate the need for second-stage revision.

Comparison of Delphi Consensus Criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool Definitions of Successful Surgical Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection

BACKGROUND

Agreement on success following surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is important for comparing the efficacy of different surgical approaches with varying consequences and outcomes and setting patient expectations. We compared success rates following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for knee PJI using two expert-consensus definitions of success.

METHODS

Prospectively documented data for 57 knees treated by a single surgeon at an academic tertiary care center were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment outcomes were quantified using the Delphi Consensus Criteria and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool (MSIS ORT).

RESULTS

Success rates were 81% using the Delphi Consensus Criteria and 56% using the MSIS ORT (P = .008). The MSIS ORT success rates increased to 76% when aseptic revisions and deaths unrelated to PJI were not penalized as failures of treatment. Predicted probabilities of successful treatment in a hypothetical case scenario were lowest based on the MSIS ORT and similarly higher using Delphi Consensus Criteria and MSIS ORT modified for both women (53.0, 90.8, and 88.7%) and men (29.1, 89.1, and 89.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Study observations underscore the need for a uniformly accepted single definition of surgical treatment success.

Advancements in treatment strategies for periprosthetic joint infections: A comprehensive review

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a critical challenge in orthopedic care, contributing to significant patient morbidity and healthcare costs. This burden is expected to increase secondary to growing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Despite the profound significance of PJI, there is currently no universally accepted "gold standard" diagnostic criteria using serum biomarker thresholds; latest criteria fail to differentiate acute infections from chronic or consider time since initial surgery. Furthermore, contemporary PJI treatment, which conventionally requires 2-stage revision surgery in conjunction with rigorous antibiotic treatment, can be particularly taxing on patients. Fortunately, recent years have seen marked evolution in both PJI diagnosis and treatment methods. Contemporary research supports time-dependent serum biomarker thresholds with greater sensitivity and specificity than previously reported, as well as alternative surgical options which may be more suitable for certain patients. The following narrative review aims to describe the significance and pathogenesis of PJI before characterizing current challenges, novel innovations, and the future landscape of PJI diagnosis and management. Here, we spotlight the emerging utility of novel biomarkers and metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosis, advancements in patient-centered surgical outcome prediction tools for PJI risk assessment and prevention, and evolving surgical techniques including 1-stage and a "hybrid" 1.5-stage revision surgeries. Additionally, we explore cutting-edge therapeutic modalities including peptide and bacteriophage-based treatments, intraoperative anti-biofilm gel, the VT-X7 antibiotic pump, and promising immune-based interventions. Ultimately, these advancements hold the potential to revolutionize PJI management, offering hope for improved outcomes and reduced burdens on healthcare systems.

Prosthetic spacers in two-stage revision for knee periprosthetic joint infection achieve better function and similar infection control

Aims

To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 50 chronic kPJI patients treated with two types of articulating spacers between January 2014 and March 2022 was conducted. The clinical outcomes and functional status of the different articulating spacers were compared. Overall, 17 patients were treated with prosthetic spacers (prosthetic group (PG)), and 33 patients were treated with cement spacers (cement group (CG)). The CG had a longer mean follow-up period (46.67 months (SD 26.61)) than the PG (24.82 months (SD 16.46); p = 0.001).

Results

Infection was eradicated in 45 patients overall (90%). The PG had a better knee range of motion (ROM) and Knee Society Score (KSS) after the first-stage revision (p = 0.004; p = 0.002), while both groups had similar ROMs and KSSs at the last follow-up (p = 0.136; p = 0.895). The KSS in the CG was significantly better at the last follow-up (p = 0.013), while a larger percentage (10 in 17, 58.82%) of patients in the PG chose to retain the spacer (p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Prosthetic spacers and cement spacers are both effective at treating chronic kPJI because they encourage infection control, and the former improved knee function status between stages. For some patients, prosthetic spacers may not require reimplantation.

Sex-related differences in periprosthetic joint infection research

Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) have emerged as a focal point in the realm of orthopedics, garnering widespread attention owing to the escalating incidence rates and the profound impact they impose on patients undergoing total joint arthroplasties (TJAs). Year after year, there has been a growing trend in the analysis of multiple risk factors, complication rates, and surgical treatments in the field. This study aims to illuminate the status of the sex-related differences in periprosthetic joint infections and advance research in this field. Methods: A systematic review was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The final reference list comprised longitudinal studies (both retrospective and prospective) and randomized controlled trials. A sex-based analysis was conducted to assess differences between males and females. Results: A total of 312 studies were initially identified through online database searches and reference investigations. Nine studies were subsequently included in the review. Eight out of nine studies examined the risk of developing PJI after total joint replacement. Notably, only half of these studies demonstrated a statistically significant value, with a p  value  < 0.05 , indicating a higher risk of infectious complications in males compared to females. Conclusion: According to the current literature, there appears to be a propensity for males to develop periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty at a higher rate than the female population. Enhancing sex-related analysis in this field is imperative for gathering more robust evidence and insights.

Biofilm and How It Relates to Prosthetic Joint Infection

Prosthetic joint infection following total joint arthroplasty is a devastating complication, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality for the patient. The formation of a biofilm on implanted hardware contributes to the difficulty in successful identification and eradication of the infection. Antibiotic therapy and surgical intervention are necessary for addressing this condition; we present a discussion on different treatment options, including those that are not yet routinely utilized in the clinical setting or are under investigation, to highlight the present and future of PJI management.

Cementless medial pivot design demonstrates equal or better outcomes compared to cementless cruciate-retaining design following total knee arthroplasty

Introduction

Traditional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs fail to reproduce physiologic knee kinematics, which can contribute to patient dissatisfaction. In an attempt to restore more normal knee kinematics, the medial pivot (MP) design may improve knee function and stability as well as patient satisfaction. A limited number of studies have compared postoperative outcomes of exclusively cementless Cruciate-Retaining (CR) TKAs to cementless MP TKAs. We aimed to compare: (1) 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year complications and revisions, (2) preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), (3) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-JR), and (4) visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-years.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed to identify all patients who had previously undergone a TKA at our institution and compare a cementless CR system to a cementless MP design. Categorical variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and complications utilized Chi-square tests in bivariable analysis. Continuous variables, such as age, were compared using Student's t-tests. Significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

Cementless CR and cementless MP cohorts showed low profiles of postoperative complications and favorable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MP cohort had lower VAS pain at 1-year (1.70 vs. 3.76, p < 0.001) and 2-years (1.43 vs. 2.60, p < 0.001) and higher ROM at 3-months (118 vs. 100, p < 0.001), 6-months (113 vs. 103, p < 0.0001), and 1-year (117 vs. 110, p = 0.02), respectively.

Conclusion

This study is the first comparison of postoperative outcomes between a cementless CR TKA and cementless MP TKA designs. Implant design and fixation type are vital components influencing patient satisfaction after TKA. Pain scores and range of motion favored the cementless MP cohort in comparison to the cementless CR cohort.

Augmented Articulating Spacers in Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty: Surgical Technique

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a prominent subject of discussion in orthopedics and are frequently debated at conferences and congresses. In the context of PJIs affecting the knee, the decision between following a one-stage or two-stage treatment approach has historically been a pivotal consideration. The first option is limited by indications and potentially devastating complications in case of failure, whereas the second is widely accepted as the gold standard. Initially, the spacer was conceived solely to restore and maintain knee space after removal of the implant. An articulating spacer was introduced to mitigate patient limitations and improve knee function and quality of life. Two main types of articulating spacers are utilized in knee PJI treatment: the mold spacer and the metal-on-poly spacer. This text outlines a technique for metal-on-poly spacer implants. Based on our experience and the existing literature, this approach facilitates early full weight bearing and faster recovery of the knee's range of motion, ultimately improving the quality of life after surgery, thus allowing the spacer retention for an extended period, as suggested by the 1.5-stage revision.

Aseptic survival of the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection was acceptable when using an autoclaved femoral component and a new polyethylene insert

PURPOSE

To investigate the aseptic survival of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Eighty-eight cases of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI without reinfection were retrospectively analysed. The autoclaved femoral component and new polyethylene insert (PE) were implanted using antibiotic mixed cement. The explanted tibial component was not reinserted. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and range of motion were clinically evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up (the last time for the implant in situ). Radiographically, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and component positions were measured preoperatively, postoperatively (1 month after the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty), and at the last follow-up. The survival rate was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, in which failure was defined as reoperation due to aseptic failure. Mean period to failure and failure site were analysed. Factors affecting survival were investigated in terms of demographics and inappropriateness of the postoperative HKA (HKA > 0 ± 3°) and component positions (α angle > 95 ± 3°, β angle > 90 ± 3°, γ angle > 3 ± 3°, and δ angle > 87 ± 3°).

RESULTS

The spacer in-situ time was 3.7 years (0.2-6.4). The clinical results improved hip-knee-ankle significantly at the last follow-up. Radiographically, the average HKA was valgus 0.1° postoperatively. The average α, β, γ, and δ angles of the postoperative component positions were 95.9°, 90.4°, 3.8°, and 86.7°, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year postoperative survival rates were 90.9%, 86.4%, and 80.6%, respectively. The mean period to failure was 2.0 years (0.2-5.3). There were 18 cases of aseptic loosening (20.8%), occurring on both the femur and tibial sides in 1 knee, and only on the tibial side in 17 knees. Inappropriate coronal position of the PE (β angle > 90 ± 3°) was a significant factor affecting survival (odds ratio = 5.491; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The aseptic survival of the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty was acceptable when using an autoclaved femoral component and new PE. The appropriate coronal position of the PE helps ensure favourable survival of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

1.5-Stage Versus 2-Stage Exchange Total Hip Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Comparison of Survivorships, Reinfections, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Management of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has traditionally consisted of a 2-stage approach. However, 1.5-stage exchange has garnered recent interest. We compared 1.5-stage to 2-stage exchange recipients. Specifically, we assessed (1) infection-free survivorship and risk factors for reinfection; (2) 2-year surgical/medical outcomes (eg, reoperations, readmissions); (3) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR); and (4) radiographic outcomes (ie, progressive radiolucent lines, subsidences, and failures).

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 1.5-stage or planned 2-stage THAs. A total of 123 hips were included (1.5-stage: n = 54; 2-stage: n = 69) with mean clinical follow-up of 2.5 years (up to 8 years). Bivariate analyses assessed incidences of medical and surgical outcomes. Additionally, HOOS-JR scores and radiographs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The 1.5-stage exchange had 11% greater infection-free survivorship at final follow-up compared to 2 stages (94% versus 83%, P = .048). Morbid obesity was the only independent risk factor demonstrating increased reinfection among both cohorts. No differences in surgical/medical outcomes were observed between groups (P = .730). HOOS-JR scores improved markedly for both cohorts (1.5-stage difference = 44.3, 2-stage difference = 32.5; P < .001). A total of 82% of 1.5-stage patients did not demonstrate progressive femoral or acetabular radiolucencies, while 94% of 2-stage recipients did not have femoral radiolucencies and 90% did not have acetabular radiolucencies.

CONCLUSION

The 1.5-stage exchange appeared to be an acceptable treatment alternative for periprosthetic joint infections after THAs with noninferior infection eradication. Therefore, this procedure should be considered by joint surgeons for treatment of periprosthetic hip infections.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes following total knee arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis versus for osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) are considered to be a successful procedure, but with little being known about outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of TKA in patients with RA versus OA.

METHODS

Data were obtained from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCO and Scopus for all available studies comparing the outcomes of THA in RA and OA patients (From January 1, 2000 to October 15, 2022). Outcomes of interest included infection, revision, venous thromboembolism (VTE), mortality, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic loosening, length of stay, and satisfaction. Two reviewers independently assessed each study for quality and extracted data. The quality of the studies was scored using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles with a total 8,033,554 patients were included in this review. The results found strong evidence for increased risk of overall infection (OR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.24-2.07; P = 0.0003), deep infection (OR = 2.06, 95% CI, 1.37-3.09; P = 0.0005), VTE (OR = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.61-0.93; P = 0.008), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P<0.00001), periprosthetic fractures (OR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.60-2.17; P<0.00001); and reasonable evidence for increased risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = 0.05), and length of stay (OR = 0.07, 95% CI, 0.01-0.14; P = 0.03) after TKA in patients with RA versus OA. There were no significant differences in superficial site infection (OR = 0.84,95% CI, 0.47-1.52; P = 0.57), revision (OR = 1.33,95% CI, 0.79-2.23; P = 0.28), mortality (OR = 1.16,95% CI, 0.87-1.55; P = 0.32), and prosthetic loosening (OR = 1.75, 95% CI, 0.56-5.48; P = 0.34) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that patients with RA have a higher risk of postoperative infection, VTE, periprosthetic fracture, and lengths of stay, but did not increase revision rate, prosthetic loosening and mortality compared to patients with OA following TKA. In conclusion, despite RA increased incidence of postoperative complications, TKA should continue to be presented as an effective surgical procedure for patients whose conditions are intractable to conservative and medical management of RA.

Retained Functional Antibiotic Hip Spacers Have High Rates of Stem Loosening, Subsidence, and Reoperation

BACKGROUND

Functional antibiotic hip spacers for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection may be retained in patients deemed too sick for reimplantation, or who elect to forego additional surgery. Our aim was to characterize reoperations, modes of failure, and function outcomes in patients who have retained hip spacers.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 43 hips (42 patients) who underwent placement of an articulating hip spacer between January 1, 2014 and November 30, 2021 at a single orthopaedic surgical hospital. There were 27 patients (28 hips) who completed 2-stage exchange (TS group) and were reimplanted at mean 4 months (range, 2 to 10). The 15 patients (15 hips) underwent planned spacer retention (RS group). Mean follow-up was 2.9 years (range, 1 to 6.1 years). The RS group was older (74 vs 66 years, P=0.005) and had a higher age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.4 vs 3.3, P=0.04) compared with the TS group.

RESULTS

Overall survivorship free of reinfection was 91% at 1 year and 86% at 5 years. There were 6 RS hips that underwent reimplantation for spacer failure at a mean of 23 months (range, 6 to 71) months and 8 had radiographic stem loosening / subsidence. Patients who had a retained spacer at final follow-up were more likely to require a walker (P=0.005) or wheelchair (P=0.049) compared with patients who underwent reimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Retained hip spacers can decrease overall surgical burden, but are associated with high rates of stem loosening, subsidence, and unplanned reoperation. Planned spacer retention should be undertaken with caution in patients healthy enough to undergo reimplantation.

Articulating spacers: what are available and how to utilize them?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is posing a global healthcare challenge as the demand for TJA mounts. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with the placement of antibiotic-loaded spacers has been shown to be efficacious against chronic PJI. This study aimed to review the key concepts, types, and outcome evaluations of articulating spacers in the two-stage exchange for PJI. Previous studies indicated that articulating spacers have been widely used due to better functional improvement and a comparable infection control rate relative to static spacers. Several types of articulating spacers are reportedly available, including hand-made spacers, spacers fashioned from molds, commercially preformed spacers, spacers with additional metal or polyethylene elements, new or autoclaved prosthesis, custom-made articulating spacers, and 3D printing-assisted spacers. However, limited evidence suggested no significant difference in clinical outcomes among the different subtypes of articulating spacers. Surgeons should be familiar with different treatment strategies when using various spacers to know which is the most appropriate.

Does Treatment at a Specialized Prosthetic Joint Infection Center Improve the Rate of Reimplantation

INTRODUCTION

Two-Stage exchange arthroplasty is currently the preferred treatment method for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The effectiveness of this strategy in returning patients to premorbid function has recently been challenged. In a review of 18, 535 PJI knee patients, 38% did not undergo reimplantation (17). In another review of 18,156 hip and knee PJI patients, 43% did not undergo reimplantation (16). These disturbing statistics led us to ask whether treatment at a specialized prosthetic joint infection center could improve the rate of reimplantation compared to the previously noted studies from large national administrative databases.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our registry was performed to identify 390 patients who underwent a two-stage exchange after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) who had a confirmed chronic bacterial PJI, defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, from January 2010 through December 2019. Variables included number of joints resected, number replanted, and the number not replanted.

RESULTS

Of the 390 patients undergoing 2-stage treatment, 386 of 390 (99%) were reimplanted and 4of 390 (1%) were not replanted due to medical issues.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that 2-stage treatment at a PJI Center significantly improves the rate of reimplantation. A specialized Prosthetic Joint Infection Center with experienced revision surgeons doing high volume infection procedures, complemented by infectious disease and medical consultants familiar with the special needs of PJI patients may be advantageous. A national network of such centers may have the ability to improve outcomes, standardize treatment protocols, and allow for collaborative research.

A Permanent Articulating Spacer Versus Two-Stage Exchange for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Although 2-stage revision has been proposed as gold standard for periprosthetic joint infection treatment, limited evidence exists for the role of articulating spacers as definitive management. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and costs associated with articulating spacers (1.5-stage) and a matched 2-stage cohort.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients who had chronic periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria and were matched via propensity score matching using cumulative Musculoskeletal Infection Society scores and a comorbidity index. Patients who maintained an articulating spacer (cemented cobalt-chrome femoral component and all-poly tibia) were included in the 1.5-stage cohort. Patients who underwent a 2-stage reimplantation procedure were included in the 2-stage cohort. Outcomes included visual analog scale pain scores, 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day readmission, unplanned reoperation, reinfection, as well as cost at 1 and 2-year intervals. A total of 116 patients were included for analyses.

RESULTS

The 90-day pain scores were lower in the 1.5-stage cohort compared to the 2-stage cohort (2.9 versus 4.6, P = .0001). There were no significant differences between readmission and reoperation rates. Infection clearance was equivalent at 79.3% for both groups. Two-stage exchange demonstrated an increased cost difference of $26,346 compared to 1.5-stage through 2 years (P = .0001). Regression analyses found 2 culture-positive results with the same organism decreased the risk for reinfection [odds ratio: 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.8, P = .03].

CONCLUSION

For high-risk candidates, articulating spacers can preserve knee function, reduce morbidity from second-stage surgery, and lower the costs with similar rates of infection clearance as 2-stage exchange.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.