Surgical management of the infected reversed shoulder arthroplasty: a French multicenter study of reoperation in 32 patients

Preventing Infections in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a commonly performed procedure to treat degenerative conditions of the shoulder. With its growing utilization, techniques to reliably diagnose and treat prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have become increasingly important. In this review we outline the current research and prevention methods of prosthetic joint infection in rTSA. This includes preoperative considerations, intraoperative, and postoperative treatment algorithms.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is currently no established standardized protocol for preoperative infection prevention or post operative management. However, recent studies have identified risk factors for infection, as well as successful prevention techniques that can be implemented to minimize infection risk. Although there is no standardized protocol currently utilized to diagnose and treat shoulder PJI, we outline a potential set of preventative measures and postoperative management strategies that clinicians can use to properly diagnose and treat patients with this difficult condition.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.

Can Pyrocarbon be used as a functional spacer for the treatment of recalcitrant shoulder infections?

Background

The most common treatment approach in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and chronic shoulder joint infection (SJI) is a two-stage revision involving interval placement of an antibiotic cement spacer or a resection arthroplasty. Knowing that Pyrocarbon has a smooth surface that prevents pathogen adhesion, the question arises whether it could be used as a temporary or permanent functional spacer?

Purpose

The primary objective of the present study was to assess the rate of infection eradication after temporary or definitive implantation of Pyrocarbon Interposition Shoulder Arthroplasty (PISA) in patients with recalcitrant PJI or SJI. Our secondary objective was to assess mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods

Fifteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 19 years) with chronic shoulder infection underwent, after joint débridement, implantation of PISA (InSpyre; Tornier-Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with tailored perioperative antibiotics. In 7 cases, PJI occurred after hemiarthroplasty (n = 2), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 2), hemireverse (n = 2), and resurfacing arthroplasty (n = 1). In 8 cases, SJI occurred in the context of failed surgery after fracture sequelae (n = 4), instability (n = 2), and cuff arthropathy (n = 2). Preoperatively, patients had a mean of 3 previous failed surgeries before PISA implantation. Patients were evaluated with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic assessment at a minimum of 2 years after surgery.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 55 ± 18 months, no patient experienced reinfection after temporary (3 cases) or definitive (12 cases) PISA implantation. The adjusted Constant score increased from 33% ± 20 preoperatively to 65% ± 28 at last follow-up and SSV from 22% ± 19 to 63% ± 23 (P < .001). Active forward elevation increased from 27° ± 19 to 113° ± 30, external rotation from 7° ± 21 to 25° ± 25, and internal rotation level 3 ± 2 to level 5 ± 2 points (P < . 001). On final radiographs of definitive PISA, complete humeral densification, or a neocortex, formed around the implant in 64% (7/11).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that, after washout, débridement and tailored antibiotics, PISA can be used as a temporary or definitive functional spacer for the treatment of recalcitrant shoulder infections and presents the following advantages: (1) PISA does not seem to be a risk for recurrent infection thanks to the antibacterial property of Pyrocarbon; (2) PISA can be used as a temporary or a definitive spacer without causing bone erosion, thanks to the low modulus of elasticity of Pyrocarbon; (3) PISA can be used as a salvage procedure in case of complete glenoid or humeral destruction, thanks to the sphericity of the implant needing no implant anchorage.

Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 60 Years: Results of a Multicenter Study

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty remains a significant complication. This study aimed to explore the epidemiology and risk factors of shoulder PJI in patients aged 60 and younger, analyze treatment options, and evaluate outcomes after 1-year follow-up. Methods: In this retrospective multicentric observational study, data from 1404 shoulders in patients under 60 who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed. Patients with PJI and at least 1-year follow-up after infection treatment were included. Results: The study identified 55 shoulders with PJI, resulting in a 2.35% infection rate after primary shoulder arthroplasty in the young population. Male gender and reverse shoulder arthroplasty were risk factors for infection, while previous surgeries did not significantly contribute. The most common causative agents were Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Open washout had a 52.9% success rate for acute infections, while one-stage and two-stage revisions achieved infection control rates of 91.3% and 85.7%, respectively. Resection arthroplasty had an 81.8% success rate but poorer functional outcomes. Conclusions: PJI following shoulder arthroplasty in young patients is a significant concern. Preoperative planning should be carefully considered to minimize infection risk. Treatment options such as open washout and one-stage and two-stage revisions offer effective infection control and improved functional outcomes. Resection arthroplasty should be reserved for complex cases where reimplantation is not a viable option.

High infection control rate after systematic one-stage procedure for shoulder arthroplasty chronic infection

PURPOSE

The two stage revision procedure is the gold standard surgical technique in chronic shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Series of one stage revision have been published with similar outcomes but with preoperative selection of patients. The aim of this work was to report the outcomes (infection eradication, functional, and radiographic) after systematic one stage revision, without preoperative selection of patients, in chronic shoulder PJI.

METHODS

This was a retrospective monocentric study including 40 patients (14 women and 26 men) with a diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after a shoulder arthroplasty. A one stage shoulder prosthesis revision was performed in all patients, for a PJI evolving for more than three weeks, without preoperative patient selection. The primary endpoint was the absence of signs of persistent infection at a minimum follow-up of two years. Secondary endpoints were clinical and radiological outcomes.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, 36/40 patients had no recurrence of infection after the one stage revision, i.e., 90% of our series. In 45% (18/40) of the cases, the microbial organism was not known at the time of the one stage revision. Cutibacterium acnes was the most frequent pathogen, found in 67.5% (27/40) of the patients. The infection was polymicrobial in 40% (16/40) of the cases. At last follow-up, mean absolute Constant score was 48.4% (16-93) and weighted score was 65.5% (22-100), and satisfaction was evaluated by the patients as excellent or good in 75% (30/40). About 20% (8/40) of the patients had a postoperative complication.

CONCLUSION

A one stage revision procedure, combined with appropriate antibiotic therapy, made it possible to eradicate the PJI in 90% of the shoulders in our series with satisfactory functional outcomes.

One-stage revision for infected shoulder arthroplasty: prospective, observational study of 37 patients

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection is a severe complication of joint replacement surgery. Thus two-stage exchange remains the gold standard, one-stage exchange is now widely recommended. We hypothesized that, for patients with chronic periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI), treatment with a one-stage exchange would be an effective approach to eradicate infection, relieve pain, and restore function to the involved shoulder.

Materials and methods

This monocenter cohort study in a Bone and Joint Infection Referral Center (11/2003-05/2020) included all patients with confirmed PSI treated by one-stage revision. Data were extracted from the prospective database, including demographics, infection characteristics, and functional evaluations (range of motion and Constant Score at admission and last follow-up). The primary outcome was the 2-year reinfection-free rate.

Results

We included 37 patients. The refection-free rate was 5%. The most commonly isolated pathogen was Cutibacterium acnes (68%), isolated alone (15 patients, 41%) or as polymicrobial infections (10 patients, 27%). The Constant Score increased significantly from 24 to 53 (P = .001). Range of motion (forward elevation, abduction) was also significantly improved after surgery. Mean active forward elevation increased significantly by 45° from 60° to 105° postoperatively (P < .001), mean abduction increased by 42° from 55° to 97° (P < .001).

Discussion

Results from our prospective cohort-extracted series suggest that one-stage revision is a reliable treatment with a low infection recurrence rate. Improved functional outcomes can be achieved with one-stage exchange. Our patients' overall functional results were similar to those previously reported for one-stage revision and better than those reported after two-stage exchange. Patients with multiple previous surgeries seem to have worse functional outcomes than the subgroup without surgery before the index arthroplasty.

Conclusions

Our results and literature search findings suggest that one-stage revisions effectively eradicate PSIs, with good functional outcomes.

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.

Preventing and Treating Infection in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Periprosthetic infection after shoulder arthroplasty is relatively uncommon though associated with severe long-term morbidity when encountered. The purpose of the review is to summarize the recent literature regarding the definition, clinical evaluation, prevention, and management of prosthetic joint infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

RECENT FINDINGS

The landmark report generated at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection has provided a framework for diagnosis, prevention, and management of periprosthetic infections after shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder specific literature with validated interventions to reduce prosthetic joint infection is limited; however existing literature from retrospective studies and from total hip and knee arthroplasty allows us to make relative guidelines. One and two-stage revisions seem to demonstrate similar outcomes; however, no controlled comparative studies exist limiting the ability to make definitive recommendations between the two options. We report on recent literature regarding the current diagnostic, preventative, and treatment options for periprosthetic infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Much of the literature does not distinguish between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and further high-level shoulder specific studies are needed to answer questions generated from this review.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a major concern in shoulder arthroplasty, which in some cases require two-stage exchange. While it was shown that low-virulence bacteria are the most isolated pathogens in shoulder PJI, little is known about changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns during two-stage revision.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients (n = 25) who received a two-stage revision from January 2011 to December 2020 for shoulder PJI in one institution. Microbiological spectrum, antimicrobial resistance patterns, and re-revision rates of culture positive first- and second-stage procedures were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 29.7 months (range 8; 115 months). At final follow-up, subjective shoulder value (SSV) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and satisfaction with the surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

In 25 patients, a total of 54 2-stage exchange procedures were performed and positive cultures were obtained in 36 of these surgeries (66.7%). A total of 7 out of 25 patients (28.0%) showed a positive microbiological culture at first and second stages. In those patients, the mean time between first and second stages was 30.9 weeks (range 6; 70). Three out of those seven patients (42.9%) had a polymicrobial spectrum with one microorganism persistent at stage two, including Cutibacterium acnes (n = 1) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) (n = 2). In all these cases, antimicrobial resistance patterns changed. All cultures with monomicrobial spectrum (n = 4) at first stage showed a changed spectrum. Patients with positive first- and second-stage revisions showed a mean SSV of 49.3% ± 23.5 versus 52.9% ± 29.5 in single positive patients (p = 0.76). Re-revision was performed in five cases, two of those in patients with positive first- and second-stage cultures.

CONCLUSION

There is a high rate of changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns between culture positive first- and second-stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. Intraoperative samples during reimplantation should be taken and resistance reconsidered in case of re-revision.

The role of synovial fluid aspiration in shoulder joint infections

BACKGROUND

Joint aspiration with analysis of synovial fluid white blood cell count (WBC) and microbiological culture is a widely established aspect in the diagnosis of shoulder joint infections (SJI). In case of a two stage revision for SJI, joint aspiration before re-/implantation of a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was used to rule out persistent infection for years but its value is under debate. Shoulder specific data on all aspects is rare. The current study aims to answer the following research questions: Does joint aspiration have an insufficient predictive value in the diagnosis of SJI in (1) initial workup and (2) before definite arthroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-Spacer in place?

METHODS

This retrospective evaluation investigates 35 patients that were treated for SJI with a two staged implantation of a TSA after debridement and implantation of an PMMA-Spacer. Joint aspirations were performed preoperatively (PA) and before re-/implantation of the prosthesis while spacer was in place (interstage aspiration, IA). Samples were taken for microbiological culture and analysis of WBC. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with reference to intraoperative microbiological samples. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), Area-Under-Curve analysis (AUC) and calculation of the Youden index were performed to find optimum cut-off for WBC.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of microbiological cultures from PA was 58.3% and the specificity was 88.9%. The mean WBC was 27,800 leucocytes/mm³ (range 400-96,300). The maximum Youden index (0.857) was a cut-off of 2600 leucocytes/mm³ with a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 100.0%. The sensitivity and specificity of IA were 0.0% and 88.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative aspiration is likely to miss Cutibacteria spp. and CoNS and cannot rule out infection for sure. However, we recommend it for its advantages of targeted antibiotic therapy in case of germ identification. Empiric antibiotic therapy should cover Cutibacteria and CoNS even if aspiration showed negative microbiological cultures. In contrast, the diagnostic value of interstage aspiration does not qualify for its routine use.

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.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in infected shoulder arthroplasty caused by Serratia marcescens: a case report

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications that can occur after shoulder arthroplasty. Although staged revision arthroplasty is the standard treatment in many cases, surgical intervention with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) can be an effective option for acute PJI. We report a complex case of infected reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in a 73-year-old male. The patient had been previously treated for infected nonunion of a proximal humerus fracture caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. He presented with a sinus tract 16 days after the implantation of RSA and was diagnosed with PJI caused by Serratia marcescens. The patient was successfully treated with DAIR and was free of infection at the last follow-up visit at 4 years postoperatively.

Defining a Synovial Fluid White Blood Cell Count Threshold to Predict Periprosthetic Infection after Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) requires a thorough diagnostic workup. Synovial fluid aspiration has been proven to be a reliable tool in the diagnosis of joint infections of the lower extremity, but shoulder specific data is limited. This study defines a threshold for synovial fluid white blood cell count (WBC) and assesses the reliability of microbiological cultures.

METHODS

Retrospective study of preoperative and intraoperative fluid aspiration of 31 patients who underwent a revision of a shoulder arthroplasty (15 with PSI defined by IDSA criteria, 16 without infection). The threshold for WBC was calculated by ROC/AUC analysis.

RESULTS

WBC was significantly higher in patients with PSI than in other patients. A threshold of 2800 leucocytes/mm3 showed a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 88% (AUROC 0.92). Microbiological cultures showed a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A threshold of 2800 leucocytes/mm3 in synovial fluid can be recommended to predict PSI. Microbiological culture has an excellent specificity and allows for targeted antibiotic therapy. Joint aspiration presents an important pillar to diagnose PSI.

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.

Mid-term outcomes of bony increased offset-reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Asian population

Background

To evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes of bony increased offset-reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) in the Asian population at mid-term follow-up.

Methods

From June 2012 to August 2017 at a single center, 43 patients underwent BIO-RSA, and 38 patients with minimum 2 years follow-up were enrolled. We evaluated the clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications at the last follow-up. In addition, we divided these patients into notching and no-notching groups and compared the demographics, preoperative, and postoperative characteristics of patients.

Results

Visual analogue scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale, and Simple Shoulder Test scores improved significantly from preoperative (5.00, 3.93, 1.72, 3.94) to postoperative (1.72, 78.91, 28.34, 7.66) (p<0.05) outcomes. All range of motion except internal rotation improved significantly at the final follow-up (p<0.05), and the bone graft was well-incorporated with the native glenoid in all patients (100%). However, scapular notching was observed in 20 of 38 patients (53%). In the comparison between notching and no-notching groups (18 vs. 20 patients), there were no significant differences in demographics, radiological parameters, and clinical outcomes except acromion-greater tuberosity (AT) distance (p=0.003). Intraoperative complications included three metaphyseal fractures and one inferior screw malposition. Postoperative complications included ectopic ossification, scapular neck stress fracture, humeral stem relaxation, and late infection in one case each.

Conclusions

BIO-RSA showed improved clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up in Asian population. However, we observed higher scapular notching compared to the previous studies. In addition, adequate glenoid lateralization with appropriate humeral lengthening (AT distance) might reduce scapular notching.

Does the retention of osseointegrated prosthetic implants during the surgical management of chronic infections following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) influence functional outcomes without impacting the efficacy of the infection treatment?

INTRODUCTION

The gold standard (GS) for treating chronic infections following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a complete exchange of the prosthesis carried out in one or two stages. This surgical procedure, which may damage the bone stock, can result in poor functional outcomes due to intraoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the GS to a surgical technique that retained osseointegrated implants: the partial one-stage exchange.

HYPOTHESIS

Partial one-stage exchange was effective in treating chronic infections after RTSA (no recurrent infection) and resulted in better functional outcomes than the GS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 18 patients with chronic infection after a primary RTSA. Two treatments were compared in a non-randomized fashion. The first included 11 patients who underwent a partial one-stage exchange with implant retention in case of macroscopic osseointegration. The second included seven patients who were treated with the GS: six patients with a complete one-stage exchange and one patient with a two-stage surgical approach. The absence of recurrent infection and functional outcomes were assessed after a minimum of two years.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in treatment efficacy between the two strategies: 91% vs. 100%, respectively. The partial one-stage exchange resulted in a significantly improved shoulder function compared to the GS with postoperative Constant scores of 55±14.58 vs. 44±14.45, respectively (p=.03). In the partial one-stage exchange group, there was a significantly improved shoulder function with a preoperative Constant score of 40 [28-55]±9.04 preoperatively vs. 55 [25-75]±14.58 postoperatively (p=.01). The GS treatment did not significantly improve the postoperative function (p=.09).

DISCUSSION

Partial one-stage exchange does not compromise treatment efficacy of chronic infections after RTSA. This technique resulted in better shoulder function than a conventional GS-type management. A study with greater statistical power is required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; clinical series, retrospective, single-center.

Complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a concise review

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is an ideal treatment for glenohumeral dysfunction due to cuff tear arthropathy. As the number of patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty is increasing, the incidence of complications after this procedure also is increasing. The rate of complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty was reported to be 15%-24%. Recently, the following complications have been reported in order of frequency: periprosthetic infection, dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, neurologic injury, scapular notching, acromion or scapular spine fracture, and aseptic loosening of prosthesis. However, the overall complication rate has varied across studies because of different prosthesis used, improvement of implant and surgical skills, and different definitions of complications. Some authors included complications that affect the clinical outcomes of the surgery, while others reported minor complications that do not affect the clinical outcomes such as minor reversible neurologic deficit or minimal scapular notching. This review article summarizes the processes related to diagnosis and treatment of complications after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with the aim of helping clinicians reduce complications and perform appropriate procedures if/when complications occur.

Methods and probability of success after early revision of prosthetic joint infections with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare-and dreaded-complication of arthroplasty requiring multidisciplinary care. Given the dual goal of treating the infection and maintaining satisfactory function, it is preferable to determine how and when the implanted components can be retained. Bacteria and fungi organize themselves into biofilms that shield them from antibiotics and the immune system. This biofilm is in place after 15 days of active infection. Some antibiotics have a better activity on biofilms. The following factors have a negative impact on the probability of a successful debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) intervention: fracture or revision, use of cement, bacteremia, kidney and/or liver failure, immunosuppression and elevated CRP. Hematogenous infections have a worse prognosis than early postoperative infections. Using a decision algorithm increases the chances of DAIR being successful. The KLIC score applies to early postoperative infections (<4 weeks postoperative and<3 weeks from the first signs) while the CRIME-80 score applies to hematogenous infections (<3 weeks from the first signs). Arthroscopic treatments have no role here, whereas DAIR through an arthrotomy is well standardized. Wide spectrum antibiotic therapy, secondarily adapted to the causative microorganism, is indicated for a total of 3 months. The results against the infection are mixed, although following a decision algorithm resolves the infection in about 75% of cases. The functional outcomes and quality of life are close to those of patients who have undergone primary joint replacement. It is not recommended to carry out a second DAIR if the first one fails. It is logical to apply the principles set out for the hip and knee to other joint replacements, and to use the same algorithm. For the upper limb, and especially for reverse shoulder arthroplasty, one must be careful about Cutibacterium acnes infections as they are hard to diagnose. Surgeons should not hesitate to contact a referral center for any PJI, although it is preferable that early infections be treated at the facility that performed the implantation.

The management of infected shoulder arthroplasty by two-stage revision

BACKGROUND

There remains no gold standard management for deep shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This case series aims to present our experience of two-stage revision arthroplasty, including eradication of infection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for shoulder PJI between 2006 and 2015. Cases were confirmed using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. TSA removal, debridement and irrigation preceded antibiotic-loaded cement spacer insertion and a minimum of six weeks intravenous antibiotics. Reimplantation was performed as a second stage following a negative aspirate.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients underwent a first stage procedure (mean age 69 years; 16 male, 12 female). Propionibacterium acnes, Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the commonest microorganisms cultured. Five cases had mixed growths and six cases provided no growth. Three patients did not proceed to a second stage. Twenty-five patients underwent reimplantation (mean interval 6.7 months), with 80% remaining infection-free (mean follow-up 38.3 months).

DISCUSSION

Managing complex and late presentation shoulder PJI with two-stage revision is associated with high rates of infection eradication (80%). In the absence of a management consensus, our experience supports two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradicating infection in this complex patient group.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant complication after arthroplasty with high morbidity. An evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of shoulder PJI is lacking in current practice. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to understand and compare the role of single- and 2-stage shoulder arthroplasty revision for PJI.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify all studies related to shoulder arthroplasty for PJI in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review were studies that reported on single- or 2-stage revision, with infection eradication and a minimum follow-up of 12 months and a minimum of 5 patients for analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q and I2.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies reporting on single-stage revision and 30 studies reporting on 2-stage revision were included in final analysis. The majority of positive cultures from single-stage revision for PJI resulted in Cutibacterium acnes with 113 of 232 (48.7%) reported cases compared with 190 of 566 (33.7%) reported cases for 2-stage revision. However, there was a lower percentage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus positive cultures, with 2.5% for single-stage compared with 9.7% for 2-stage revision. The overall pooled random-effect reinfection incidence was 0.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.08), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 34%, P = .02). The reinfection rate was 6.3% for single-stage and 10.1% for 2-stage revision, but this was not significant (Q = 0.9 and P = .40).

CONCLUSION

Based on a systematic review with meta-analysis, single-stage revision for shoulder PJI is an effective treatment. Indeed, our analysis showed single-stage to be more effective than 2-stage, but this is likely confounded by a treatment bias given the higher propensity of virulent and drug-resistant bacteria treated with 2-stage in the published literature. This implies that shoulder surgeons treating PJI can be reassured of a low recurrence rate (6.3%) when using single-stage treatment for C acnes or other sensitive, low-virulence organisms.

Salvage Procedures of the Shoulder: Glenohumeral Arthrodesis and Resection Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With the advances of modern medicine and technology there has been an increase of indications of shoulder reconstruction techniques and shoulder arthroplasty. Consequently, the number of complications and failures have increased in parallel. Not negligible number of cases are driven to an end-stage situation where salvage procedures, such as glenohumeral arthrodesis (GHA) and shoulder resection arthroplasty (SRA), are the only remaining solution.

METHODS

The current literature on glenohumeral arthrodesis and shoulder resection arthroplasty was reviewed to determine the indications, surgical technique, complications and outcomes. The electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the strategies used were "glenohumeral arthrodesis", "glenohumeral fusion", "shoulder arthrodesis" and "shoulder resection arthroplasty".

RESULTS

Indications for glenohumeral arthrodesis (GHA) include brachial plexus injury, tumor resections, chronic infection, failed prosthetic arthroplasty, persistent refractory instability or pseudoparalysis of the shoulder with combined irreparable rotator cuff and deltoid injuries. GHA provides good stability, pain resolution, although function is markedly compromised and relying mostly on scapulothoracic joint. The gold standard surgical technique continues to be open shoulder arthrodesis and still has a high complication rate. Shoulder resection arthroplasty (SRA) indications have evolved through the years, being nowadays a salvage procedure for recalcitrant infection of shoulder arthroplasty the main indication. Shoulder function after SRA is often severely compromised, but has a high infection rate resolution. SRA is not technically demanding and complications are rare, being the persistence of infection the most common one.

DISCUSSION

Despite GHA and SRA having negative connotations, in selected patients, these procedures can diminish pain, resolve persistent infections and provide an acceptable shoulder function. Hence, they should be retained as part of the treatment algorithm for complex shoulder pathology.

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.

Factors predictive of Cutibacterium periprosthetic shoulder infections: a retrospective study of 342 prosthetic revisions

BACKGROUND

Cutibacterium are the most common cause of periprosthetic shoulder infections, as defined by ≥2 deep cultures. Established Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections cannot be resolved without prosthesis removal. However, the decision for implant removal must be made from an assessment of infection risk before the results of intraoperative cultures are finalized. We hypothesized that the risk for a Cutibacterium infection is associated with characteristics that are available at the time of revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a retrospective review of 342 patients having prosthetic revisions between 2006 and 2018 for whom definitive deep culture results were available, we used univariate and multivariate analyses to compare the preoperative and intraoperative characteristics of 101 revisions with Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections to the characteristics of 241 concurrent revisions not meeting the definition of infection.

RESULTS

Patients with definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections were younger (59 ± 10 vs. 64 ± 12, P < .001), were more likely to be male (91% vs. 44%, P < .001), were more likely to have had their index procedure performed for primary osteoarthritis (54% vs. 39%, P = .007), were more likely to be taking testosterone supplements (8% vs. 2%, P = .02), had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7, P < .001), and had lower body mass indices (29 ± 5 vs. 31 ± 7, P = .005). Patients with definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections also had significantly higher preoperative loads of Cutibacterium on their unprepared skin surface (1.7 ± 0.9 vs. 0.4 ± 0.8, P < .001) and were more likely to have the surgical finding of synovitis (41% vs. 16%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections is associated with observations that can be made before or at the time of revision arthroplasty.

Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty - Results at a minimum of five years

BACKGROUND

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty provides predictable pain relief and improvements in function, but concerns remain regarding complication rates and there is little long-term outcome data. The aim of this study was to review the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty at a minimum of five years.

METHODS

Ninety-six Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures were performed in 93 patients. There were 41 males and 52 females with an average age of 74.9 years. All available patients returned for clinical and radiographic analysis, including completion of patient reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

The complication rate was 9.4%. There were three revisions (3.1%) and two other reoperations (2.1%). Fifty-nine shoulders were available for review at an average of 81 months. Average forward flexion was 142°. Average American Shoulder and Elbow Assessment Score improved from 27.6 to 78.5 (p<0.001). Radiolucent lines and/or proximal bone resorption was seen in 35.4%. Scapula notching was observed in 69.1%, with Grade III or IV notching in 20%. These findings had no effect on patient reported outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the clinical benefits of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, with improvements maintained out to 10 years. The high rate of scapula notching remains a concern. Further study is needed to fully understand the clinical significance of notching, as well as the potential benefits of newer implant designs.

One- or two-stage exchange for periprosthetic shoulder infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

One-stage exchange is the gold-standard for management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. The present review compares efficacy between 1- and 2-stage exchange in this indication.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) criteria. The literature search used the Medline, Embase and Central data-bases. The studies included assessed 1- and 2-stage exchange in periprosthetic shoulder infection. The main outcome was reinfection rate, and the secondary outcome postoperative complications rate.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies, for 501 patients, were included: 5 assessing 1-stage exchange, 11 2-stage, and 5 both. Mean follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 2-6.1 years). Mean reinfection rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 0 and 36.8% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 7% (95% CI, 3.8-12.5%) in 1-stage and 21.3% (95% CI, 16-27.9%) in 2-stage exchange. Mean complications rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 5.7% and 73%% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 17% (95% CI, 11.9-23.9%) in 1-stage and 32.8% (95% CI, 25.8-40.6%) in 2-stage exchange.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, the present meta-analysis is the first to assess results in 1- and 2-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic shoulder infection.

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange seemed to provide better results, with less reinfection and fewer complications than 2-stage exchange.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, meta-analysis.

Clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty used for failed prior shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is frequently performed in the revision setting as a salvage procedure. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical outcomes and complication, reoperation, and revision rates after revision RSA (RRSA) stratified according to the primary shoulder procedure undergoing revision.

Methods

Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) were searched for eligible studies published between January 1985 and September 2017. The primary outcomes of interest included pain, active range of motion, and functional outcome scores. Secondary outcomes included complication, reoperation, and revision rates.

Results

A total of 43 studies (1041 shoulder arthroplasties) met the inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up period of 43.8 months (range, 31.1-57.2 months). Pain scores improved in all groups; however, none reached statistical significance. Range of motion improved in all groups, except for external rotation in the RSA category. RRSA demonstrated significant improvements in the Simple Shoulder Test score and Constant score (CS) in the group undergoing hemiarthroplasty (HA) for fracture, CS in the group undergoing HA for other indications, and CS in the group undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Pooled complication rates were highest in the failed RSA group (56.2%), followed by the group undergoing HA for other indications (27.7%), total shoulder arthroplasty group (23.6%), soft-tissue repair group (20.6%), open reduction and internal fixation group (19.0%), and group undergoing HA for fracture (13.6%).

Conclusions

Compared with other revision indications, RRSA for failed HA demonstrated the most favorable outcomes, whereas the highest complication and revision rates were observed in the RSA subgroup. This information is useful when establishing patient expectations regarding the risks, benefits, and complication and revision rates of RRSA.

Advanced septic arthritis of the shoulder treated by a two-stage arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The usual treatment of septic shoulder arthritis consists of arthroscopic or open lavage and debridement. However, in patients with advanced osteoarthritic changes and/or massive rotator cuff tendon tears, infection eradication can be challenging to achieve and the functional outcome is often not satisfying even after successful infection eradication. In such cases a two-stage approach with initial resection of the native infected articular surfaces, implantation of a cement spacer before final treatment with a total shoulder arthroplasty in a second stage is gaining popularity in recent years with the data in literature however being still limited.

AIM

To evaluate the results of a short interval two-stage arthroplasty approach for septic arthritis with concomitant advanced degenerative changes of the shoulder joint.

METHODS

We retrospectively included five consecutive patients over a five-year period and evaluated the therapeutic management and the clinical outcome assessed by disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score and subjective shoulder value (SSV). All procedures were performed through a deltopectoral approach and consisted in a debridement and synovectomy, articular surface resection and insertion of a custom made antibiotic enriched cement spacer. Shoulder arthroplasty was performed in a second stage.

RESULTS

Mean age was 61 years (range, 47-70 years). Four patients had previous surgeries ahead of the septic arthritis. All patients had a surgical debridement ahead of the index procedure. Mean follow-up was 13 mo (range, 6-24 mo). Persistent microbiological infection was confirmed in all five cases at the time of the first stage of the procedure. The shoulder arthroplasties were performed 6 to 12 wk after insertion of the antibiotic-loaded spacer. There were two hemi and three reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Infection was successfully eradicated in all patients. The clinical outcome was satisfactory with a mean DASH score and SSV of 18.4 points and 70% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Short interval two-stage approach for septic shoulder arthritis is an effective treatment option. It should nonetheless be reserved for selected patients with advanced disease in which lavage and debridement have failed.

Management of infected shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of treatment strategies

BACKGROUND

The study purpose was to determine whether 2-stage revision procedures result in superior outcomes and whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty produced superior outcomes to hemiarthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation.

METHODS

Our prospectively collected database was retrospectively reviewed for all surgically treated infected shoulder arthroplasties between 2006 and 2014. We included 47 patients in this study: 27 underwent a 2-stage revision, and 20 were treated with an antibiotic spacer as definitive treatment. Preoperative laboratory results, intraoperative cultures and pathology findings, recurrence of infection, complications, and outcome measures were compared between treatment groups.

RESULTS

A recurrent infection developed in 3 patients in the antibiotic spacer group and 2 patients in the 2-stage revision group (P = .25). A total of 20 procedure-related complications and 11 medical complications occurred between the 2 groups; however, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. The 2-stage group had statistically significantly better Constant scores (58.1 vs. 33.3, P = .04) and elevation (94.4° vs. 48.6°, P = .02) than the antibiotic spacer group. Subanalysis of the 2-stage revision group showed that reverse total shoulder arthroplasties had statistically superior Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California at Los Angeles, and Constant scores; elevation; and abduction compared with hemiarthroplasties or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage revision procedures and use of an antibiotic spacer for definitive management of periprosthetic shoulder infections appear to be similar and effective in eradicating infections. Two-stage revisions using a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation generate superior range of motion and functional outcome scores.

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

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. More than 800 experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The shoulder workgroup reached consensus on 27 questions related to culture techniques, inflammatory markers, and diagnostic criteria used to evaluate patients for periprosthetic shoulder infection. This document contains the group's recommendations and rationale for each question related to evaluating periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Scoping review: Diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence regarding periprosthetic shoulder infection to inform development of evidence and consensus-based guidelines.

METHODS

A search of Medline, Embase and PubMed was performed; two authors screened the results independently for inclusion.

RESULTS

Totally 88 studies were included. Incidence of periprosthetic shoulder infection ranged from 0.7% to 7%. The most common organisms to cause periprosthetic shoulder infection were Propionibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Male gender and younger age are the most reported risk factors. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein and serum/synovial biomarkers had limited diagnostic accuracy. Thirty-nine studies reported the outcome of surgical management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Eradication rates vary from 54% to 100% for debridement procedures; 66-100% for permanent spacers; 50-100% following single-stage revision; 60-100% following two-stage revision; and 66-100% following resection arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

There is wide heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes of studies are often contradictory and due to issues with methodology and small sample sizes the optimal pathways for diagnosis and management cannot be determined from this review. Future research should be based on larger cohorts and randomised trials where feasible to provide more valid research for guiding future treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Outcomes of revision surgery after periprosthetic shoulder infection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) is one of the most challenging complications after shoulder arthroplasty. Different treatments have been proposed, but the best surgical procedure remains disputed in the current literature. This systematic review investigated the outcomes of revision surgery after PSI.

METHODS

The PubMed and Scopus databases were used to search keywords in April 2018. Of 2157 titles, 34 studies were finally analyzed. Demographics, laboratory and microbiological data, types of implants, surgical techniques with complications and reoperations, eradication rates, and clinical and functional outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 754 patients were identified. Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) was the most common microorganism found both in PSI (33%) and persistent infections (40%). Preoperatively, C-reactive protein was elevated in 70% of patients with PSI. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty had a lower prevalence of infection (P < .001). The eradication rate was 96% with 1 stage, 93% with permanent spacers, 86% with 2 stages, 85% with resection arthroplasty, and 65% with irrigation and débridement. One-stage revision was the best treatment, considering postoperative flexion and abduction, compared with resection arthroplasty, permanent spacers, and 2-stage revision. One-stage revision showed fewer postoperative complications than irrigation and débridement, resection arthroplasty, and 2-stage surgery. Two-stage surgery was the most common treatment, and the functional score demonstrated no differences between 2-stage and 1-stage procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that a 1-stage procedure should be recommended to treat PSI. Two-stage revision could be reserved for select cases in which the bacterium involved is unknown.

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.

One-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

Studies on 1-stage exchange in septic shoulder arthroplasty are limited and show a wide variation of treatment strategies. This retrospective study investigated infection-free survival and function of 1-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm.

METHODS

The requirement for 1-stage exchange was an isolated microorganism from synovial fluid aspiration or synovial biopsy with an antibiotic susceptibility profile prior to revision surgery. If no microorganism was isolated or the underlying pathogen was a difficult-to-treat microorganism (not accessible for biofilm-active antibiotics, enterococci, and fungi), 2-stage exchange was performed. Function was assessed by the Constant score.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included, with a mean follow-up period of 5.8 years. The most and second most commonly detected microorganisms were Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, respectively. At 1-stage exchange, patients received local and systemic antibiotics based on the susceptibility profile of the microorganism. Twelve patients with insufficient rotator cuffs received reverse shoulder arthroplasty, whereas 2 patients with intact rotator cuffs underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The infection-free survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 100% and 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59%-99%), respectively, with 1 recurrence of infection 22 months after 1-stage exchange. Another patient with limited range of motion underwent revision 6 months postoperatively, leading to a revision-free survival rate of 93% (95% CI, 59%-99%) and 86% (95% CI, 54%-96%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The mean Constant score was 65 (range, 44-95).

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange with prior detection of the underlying microorganism provides satisfactory infection-free survival and function.

Implant Removal and Spacer Placement for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: Risk Factors for Repeat Procedures, Spacer Retention, and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Current studies reporting on patients following prosthesis removal and spacer placement for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the shoulder have largely been descriptive and insufficiently powered to determine risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation.

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study is to provide a national perspective on the 1-year outcomes following prosthesis removal and spacer placement and risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation for treatment of PJI following shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

A national database was queried for Medicare patients who underwent prosthesis removal and spacer placement for PJI between 2005 and 2012. These patients were then evaluated for 5 major study endpoints including: (1) replantation of a shoulder prosthesis within 1 year postoperatively, (2) a repeat irrigation and debridement with second antibiotic spacer placement procedure within 1 year postoperatively, (3) in-hospital death within 1 year postoperatively, (4) a shoulder Girdlestone-type procedure within 1 year postoperatively, and (5) the remaining patients, who were considered to have a retained spacer. Patients with a study endpoint within 1 year postoperatively were included in the study: (1) mortality, (2) repeat debridement, (3) resection arthroplasty, and (4) reimplantation. While it is possible that some patients were not captured due to errors in coding, it is unlikely that patients were lost to follow-up due to change in location of services, given that the database captures all episodes of care that are coded throughout the USA. Independent risk factors were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-five patients who underwent prosthesis removal and spacer placement were included. Within 1 year postoperatively, 21 patients died (2.2%), 70 patients had a repeat debridement procedure (7.2%), 55 patients had a resection arthroplasty procedure (5.6%), 349 patients retained their spacers (35.8%), and the remaining 480 patients had a shoulder arthroplasty reimplanted (49.2%). Numerous independent risk factors exist for all outcomes studied.

CONCLUSION

The fate of antibiotic spacers placed for PJI of the shoulder at 1 year is variable, with numerous independent risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation. Patients with PJI following total shoulder arthroplasty should be counseled on the risk factors that influence the outcomes of staged revision for shoulder PJI.

Lack of level I evidence on how to prevent infection after elective shoulder surgery

PURPOSE

Infection is a concern after all orthopedic procedures, including shoulder surgery. This systematic review of literature aimed to determine risk factors for infection as well as the availability and effectiveness of measures utilized to prevent infection after elective shoulder surgery.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed using MEDLINE (1950-October 2017), EMBASE (1980-October 2017), CINAHL (1982-October 2017), and the Cochrane database to identify studies reporting a risk factor or preventive measure for infection after shoulder surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk factors identified for infection were male sex, the presence of hair, receiving an intra-articular cortisone injection within the 3 months prior to surgery, smoking, obesity, and several comorbidities. The only preventive measure with level I evidence was for the use of chlorhexidine wipes for cleansing the skin in the days prior to surgery and for the use of ChloraPrep or DuraPrep over povodine and iodine to prep the skin at the time of surgery. Level II-IV evidence was found for other infection prevention methods such as intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

There are many risk factors associated with developing an infection after elective shoulder surgery. Many preventive measures have been described which may decrease the risk of infection; however, most lack a high level evidence to support them. The findings of this systematic review are clinically relevant as it has been shown that infection after shoulder surgery results in poor patient-reported outcomes and pose a significant financial burden. As surgeons the goal should be to prevent infections to avoid the morbidity for patients and the increased cost for society.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV systematic review of literature.

Association of Perioperative Glycemic Control With Deep Postoperative Infection After Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although diabetes mellitus (DM) has been established as a risk factor for infection after lower extremity arthroplasty, no association has been reported with shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

We queried a national database for patients with DM who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty. We identified perioperative hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and assessed the incidence of wound complications within 6 months and deep infection that required surgical intervention within 1 year for each HbA1c level. We performed a receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine a threshold value of HbA1c.

RESULTS

Patients with DM had markedly higher rates of wound complications (1.4% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 1.22; P = 0.028) and deep infection (0.7% versus 0.4%; odds ratio, 1.47; P = 0.001). The rates of wound complications (P = 0.0008) and deep postoperative infection (P = 0.002) increased markedly as the perioperative HbA1c level increased. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated an inflection point at an HbA1c level of 8.0 mg/dL (P = 0.017; sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of wound complications and deep postoperative infection in patients with DM increases as the perioperative HbA1c level increases. An HbA1c level >8.0 mg/dL could serve as a threshold for a markedly increased risk of infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level III, case-control study, treatment study.

Results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection

Background

The objective of this study is to present the results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection and to determine the rate of positive cultures in the second-stage surgery in shoulder arthroplasty and its meaning.

Methods

Twenty-one patients (22 cement spacers) treated with two-stage surgery because of a shoulder arthroplasty infection were included. In the second stage, the cement spacer was sent for sonication and at least four tissue cultures were obtained. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, sensitivity of the microorganisms to the antibiotic loaded in the cement spacer in the first revision surgery, time elapsed since an antibiotic was last administered until second revision procedure, functional shoulder status at last follow-up, and any complication were recorded.

Results

Three out of the 22 cases (13.6%) presented positive cultures at the second-stage surgery. Periprosthetic tissue culturing detected the three positive culture cases in the second stage while the cement spacer sonication detected two and missed one. Considering periprosthetic tissue culturing as the standard procedure, the cement spacer sonication showed sensitivity at 66.6%. Recurrent infection over time was considered present in 3 patients; two of them had been previously diagnosed with a positive culture at the second stage (66.6%).

Conclusions

A good number of patients (13.6%) present a positive culture at the second stage of the two-stage surgical procedure for infected shoulder arthroplasty, and those patients seem to be at high risk for recurrent infection. Periprosthetic tissue cultures have a higher sensitivity to detecting a positive culture at the second stage than cement spacer sonication.

Two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty using prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: minimum three-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and persistent infection rate of two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

We enrolled 12 patients who developed an infection after undergoing shoulder arthroplasty between January 2009 and January 2014. They underwent a two-stage revision with PROSTALAC implantation and shoulder re-implantation in the first- and second-stage surgery, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 40.88 months (range, 36-52 months). After the second-stage re-implantation, clinical scores, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, as well as C-reactive protein level were evaluated, and the presence of re-infection and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Infection was improved in all the cases after PROSTALAC insertion. The mean range of motion of forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation at the final follow-up after the second-stage re-implantation were 81.67°, 40.42°, and 16.67° (vertebral level), respectively. The mean visual analog scale score improved from 7.08 points before surgery to 2.33 points after surgery. The Modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 32.25 before surgery to 64.17 after surgery (P < 0.05). The Constant shoulder score also improved from 30.92 before surgery to 66.08 after surgery (P < 0.05). Infection had not recurred until the final follow-up. However, dislocation and separation of components were found in two patients who needed a structural allograft because of segmental bone defects.

CONCLUSION

Using PROSTALAC in two-stage revision arthroplasty is effective for infection control and produced good clinical outcomes after second-stage shoulder re-implantation. However, cases involving segmental bone defects require additional precautions in maintaining the appropriate tension and height to prevent complications.

Two-stage revision for infected shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) are challenging to treat and often result in significant patient morbidity. Without a standardized treatment protocol, PSIs are often managed similarly to periprosthetic hip and knee infections. Because 2-stage revision is the gold standard for treating periprosthetic hip and knee infections, we performed a case series and literature review to determine its effectiveness in PSIs.

METHODS

We identified 19 patients (14 men) from our institution who were treated with a 2-stage revision after presenting with a PSI. Mean patient age was 63 ± 9 years, and average body mass index was 30.8 ± 5.8. The average time from the index arthroplasty to treatment was 40 months, 8 of 13 positive cultures were Propionibacterium acnes, and 9 of 19 patients had multiple shoulder operations before presenting with infection. Minimum follow-up for all patients was 2 years.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 63 months (range, 25-184 months), 15 of 19 patients in our study were successfully treated for PSI. Average postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Assessment score was 69 (range, 32-98) and average postoperative forward elevation was significantly increased from 58° to 119° (P < .001). The incidence of recurrent infection was 26%. The rate of noninfection complications was 16%, for a total complication rate of 42%.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PSIs, especially those with intractable, chronic infections, a 2-stage revision represents a viable treatment option for eradicating infection and restoring function. However, it is important to recognize the risk of recurrent infection and postoperative complications in this challenging patient population.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection: an overview

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) is rare but potentially devastating. The rate of PSI is increased in cases of revision procedures, reverse shoulder implants and co-morbidities. One specific type of PSI is the occurrence of low-grade infections caused by non-suppurative bacteria such as Propionibacterium acnes or Staphylococcus epidemermidis.

Success of treatment depends on micro-organism identification, appropriate surgical procedures and antibiotic administration efficiency. Post-operative early PSI can be treated with simple debridement, while chronic PSI requires a one- or two-stage revision procedure. Indication for one-time exchange is based on pre-operative identification of a causative agent. Resection arthroplasty remains an option for low-demand patients or recalcitrant infection.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:104-109. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160023

Neer Award 2017: A rapid method for detecting Propionibacterium acnes in surgical biopsy specimens from the shoulder

BACKGROUND

Propionibacterium (P) acnes infection of the shoulder after arthroplasty is a common and serious complication. Current detection methods for P acnes involve anaerobic cultures that require prolonged incubation periods (typically 7-14 days). We have developed a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) approach that sensitively and specifically identifies P acnes in tissue specimens within a 24-hour period.

METHODS

Primers were designed to amplify a unique region of the 16S rRNA gene in P acnes that contained a unique HaeIII restriction enzyme site. PCR and RFLP analyses were optimized to detect P acnes DNA in in vitro cultures and in arthroscopic surgical biopsy specimens from patients with P acnes infections.

RESULTS

A 564 base-pair PCR amplicon was derived from all of the known P acnes strains. HaeIII digests of the amplicon yielded a restriction fragment pattern that was unique to P acnes. P acnes-specific amplicons were detected in as few as 10 bacterial cells and in clinical biopsy specimens of infected shoulder tissues.

CONCLUSION

This PCR-RFLP assay combines the sensitivity of PCR with the specificity of RFLP mapping to identify P acnes in surgical isolates. The assay is robust and rapid, and a P acnes-positive tissue specimen can be confirmed within 24 hours of sampling, facilitating treatment decision making, targeted antibiotic therapy, and monitoring to minimize implant failure and revision surgery.

Management of acute or late hematogenous infection after shoulder arthroplasty with irrigation, débridement, and component retention

BACKGROUND

Irrigation and débridement (I&D) with component retention is an appealing alternative to both patients and surgeons for the management of acute or late hematogenous deep periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). However, the success rate and results of I&D are poorly documented. This study reports the outcomes and complications of this treatment strategy for acute and delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI.

METHODS

Between 1980 and 2010, 10 shoulders (9 patients) underwent I&D with component retention for the management on an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI at a single institution. Outcome data, including pain, range of motion, need for chronic oral antibiotic suppression therapy, eradication of infection, and need for further surgery were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Deep infection recurred in 3 shoulders, which were eventually treated with resection arthroplasty. Of the remaining 6 patients (7 shoulders), 5 were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression. At the most recent follow-up, pain was graded as none in 3 shoulders, mild in 1, moderate with activity in 3, moderate in 2, and severe in 1. Among shoulders with retained components, forward elevation was greater than 110° in 6 (median, 140°; range, 30°-160°), and external rotation was greater than 40° in all shoulders (median, 50°; range, 40°-90°).

CONCLUSION

I&D allowed component retention in 70% of shoulders presenting with an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous infection. Most patients were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression, and reasonable motion was maintained.