Outcomes of revision arthroplasty for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a three-stage revision protocol

The influence of gut microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections: State-of-the art

Early periprosthetic joint infection constitutes one of the most frightening complications of joint replacement. Recently, some evidence has highlighted the potential link between dysregulation of the gut microbiota and degenerative diseases of joints. It has been hypothesized that microbiome dysbiosis may increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection by facilitating bacterial translocation from these sites to the bloodstream or by impairing local or systemic immune responses. Although the processes tying the gut microbiome to infection susceptibility are still unknown, new research suggests that the presurgical gut microbiota-a previously unconsidered component-may influence the patient's ability to resist infection. Exploring the potential impact of the microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections may therefore bring new insights into the pathogenesis and therapy of these disorders. For a successful therapy, a proper surgical procedure in conjunction with an antibacterial concept is essential. As per the surgical approach, different treatment strategies include surgical irrigation, debridement, antibiotic therapy, and implant retention with or without polyethylene exchange. Other alternatives could be one-stage or two-stage revisions surgery. Interventions that either directly target gut microbes as well as interventions that modify the composition and/or function of the commensal microbes represent an innovative and potentially successful field to be explored. In recent times, innovative therapeutic methods have arisen in the realm of microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related ailments. These progressive approaches offer fresh perspectives on tackling intricate microbial imbalances in the gastrointestinal tract. These emerging therapies signify a shift towards more precise and individualized approaches to microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related disorders. Once a more advanced knowledge of the pathways linking the gut microbiota to musculoskeletal tissues is gained, relevant microbiome-based therapies can be developed. If dysbiosis is proven to be a significant contributor, developing treatments for dysbiosis may represent a new frontier in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections.

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.

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes after two-stage revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with the results of primary RSA. Patients affected by PJI and treated by means of two-stage revision RSA were 1:1 matched with a group of patients who were treated electively with RSA without developing any complications. Out of 1477 RSAs performed between 2009 and 2021, 16 patients developed a PJI. Each matched cohort comprised 16 patients (3 females, 13 males). The mean age was 69.13 ± 5.43 years old in the PJI group and 70.28 ± 5.04 (p = 0.543) in the matched cohort. The mean follow-up was 41.23 ± 26.9 months in the PJI group and 28.5 ± 20.2 (p = 0.142) in the matched group. Only one patient showed recurrent PJI five years after revision RSA. Comparison between the PJI patients and matched patients did not show any significant differences at the latest follow-up, nor for subjective shoulder value (SSV) (p = 0.101) or Constant score (p = 0.134). Two-stage exchange RSA for PJI allows for appropriate control of the disease and good functional outcomes. Comparison with an age- and sex-matched cohort of uninfected patients showed no significant differences, thus confirming the idea that revision surgeries may lead to satisfactory functional outcomes, as expected after primary surgery.

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.

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.

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.

Current Concepts on the Application, Pharmacokinetics and Complications of Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint replacement surgery. It affects about 2% of primary total joint replacements. Treatment aims at infection eradication and restoration of patient's mobility. Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an interim application of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer (ALCS) is the widely accepted treatment for PJI. Spacers are powerful local carriers of antibiotics at the site of infection, effective against biofilm-protected microbes. On the other hand, spacers permit some mobility of the patient and facilitate final prosthesis implantation. ALCS's are either commercially available or prepared intraoperatively on prefabricated or improvised molds. Antibiotic elution from the spacer depends on the amount of the antibiotic used for cement impregnation, at the expense of mechanical stiffness of the spacer. The antibiotic should not exceed 4g per 40g of bone cement to preserve the mechanical properties of the cement. Spacers are frequently accompanied by local or systemic complications. The spacer may break, dislocate and compress vessels or nerves of the limb. Systemic complications are the result of excess elution of antibiotic and include nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, ototoxicity, allergic reactions or neutropenia. Elderly patients with comorbidities are at risk to present such complications. Microbial resistance is a potential risk of long-lasting spacer retention. Persisting infection may require multiple spacer replacements.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Complications Associated With Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment for Cutibacterium acnes Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Whether positive Cutibacterium acnes cultures during revision shoulder arthroplasty represent true periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), deep tissue inoculant, or laboratory contaminant is a point of substantial controversy. The purpose of this study was to review complications of intravenous antibiotics used for treatment of presumed C acnes shoulder PJI. A study population of 26 patients treated for C acnes PJI with a minimum follow-up of 2 years after operative treatment was established. Complication occurrence and severity were obtained through chart review and phone survey. Sixteen (61.5%) patients experienced a therapeutic complication. Twelve (46.2%) patients experienced a total of 47 antibiotic-associated adverse effects and 10 (38.5%) patients experienced 11 total peripherally inserted central catheter line-associated complications. Female sex carried an increased risk for severe complications (relative risk, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2-9.5; P=.024). Treatment duration of greater than 6 weeks was a significant predictor for the total number of complications experienced [F(1,23)=5.361; P=.030; adjusted R²=0.189]. Age older than 65 years, treatment duration greater than 6 weeks, and female sex were significant predictors for the number of severe complications [F(3,21)=3.249; P=.042; adjusted R²=0.219]. Treating C acnes infection with intravenous antibiotics carries a substantial risk of adverse events, highlighting the importance of accurate diagnosis of shoulder PJI. Further investigations into the efficacy and safety profile of oral antibiotics for shoulder PJI are necessary. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e422-e426.].

Role of pre-revision tissue biopsy in evaluation of painful shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pre-revision tissue biopsy (PTB) for culture has been used as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation for periprosthetic joint infection among patients with a painful shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of PTB culture results compared with results of "gold-standard" tissue biopsy for culture taken at the time of subsequent revision surgery (TBR), and (2) report the current indications and protocols described for use of PTB. The hypothesis was that PTB culture results would correlate highly with results of TBR and that protocols for PTB would vary by institution.

METHODS

By use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature were performed using the Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane databases from inception through March 2020. Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) validated grading criteria were used to summarize the quality and bias of included studies. Studies were included if an arthroscopic or open tissue biopsy was performed in patients who had previously undergone anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as a separate procedure prior to revision of components, if applicable. Meta-analysis to identify the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of PTB was performed. Analysis was performed by first defining 1 positive PTB culture result as infection and then defining 2 positive culture results as infection.

RESULTS

A total of 1751 titles were screened, and 66 full-text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Four total studies encompassing 72 cases met the inclusion criteria. All studies were small (N = 13 to N = 23), retrospective series, with all but 12 biopsies performed arthroscopically. Sixty-five patients (90.2%) underwent subsequent revision surgery and TBR. Of these patients, 23 (35.4%) had ≥1 positive culture result with PTB and TBR. By this definition, the sensitivity of PTB was 92.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-98.6%); specificity, 70.0% (95% CI, 53.3%-82.9%); PPV, 65.7% (95% CI, 47.7%-80.3%); and NPV, 93.3% (95% CI, 76.5%-98.8%). For 2 positive PTB results, the sensitivity of PTB was 100% (95% CI, 51.7%-100%); specificity, 50.0% (95% CI, 31.4%-68.6%); PPV, 33.3% (95% CI, 14.4%-58.8%); and NPV, 100% (95% CI, 69.9%-100%). No complications of PTB were reported. The mean Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) grade was 11.4 (range, 8.5-14).

CONCLUSION

PTB is a sensitive diagnostic modality with a high NPV that may aid in the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection in patients with a painful shoulder arthroplasty. Given the disparate biopsy protocols, greater standardization of clinical best practices and broader prospective studies are necessary to define the future role of PTB in dictating treatment.

Periprosthetic Infection After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

[Two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for treating postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of proximal humeral fracture]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the effectiveness of two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for treating postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of the proximal humeral fracture.

METHODS

Between June 2014 and January 2018, 17 patients with deep infection and humeral head necrosis or bone nonunion after internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures were treated. There were 8 males and 9 females, aged from 52 to 78 years (mean, 63.8 years). The infection occurred at 19-66 months after the initial internal fixation (mean, 34.8 months). Microbial culture of joint fluid was positive in 14 cases and negative in 3 cases. The preoperative Constant score, American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were 36.41±8.65, 31.06±7.43, and 7.29±0.99, respectively. The preoperative ranges of forward flexion, abduction, external rotation were (45.88±12.46), (42.18±12.31), and (16.76±4.92)°, respectively. The preoperative range of internal rotation was buttock in 9 cases, lumbosacral joint in 3 cases, L 3 in 5 cases. At the first-stage surgery, the thorough debridement was done and the antibiotic-impregnated bone cement spacer was placed after the removal of internal fixation. After the infections disappeared, the two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was performed. The mean interval between the two procedures was 4.2 months (range, 3.0-6.5 months).

RESULTS

All the incisions healed primarily and no complications such as recurrent infection or vascular nerve injury occurred. All patients were followed up 15-32 months (mean, 22.0 months). At last follow-up, the ranges of forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation were (109.00±23.66), (98.53±16.92), (41.41±6.82)°, respectively; and the range of internal rotation was lumbosacral joint in 5 cases, L 3 in 8 cases, T 12 in 4 cases. The range of motion of shoulder joints at last follow-up was significant improved when compared with the preoperative range of motion ( P<0.05). The Constant score (64.88±8.70), ASES score (65.18±8.10), and VAS score (2.94±1.25) were significantly superior to the preoperative scores ( P<0.05). X-ray films showed that no prosthesis loosening occurred.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is an effective treatment for the postoperative deep infection after internal fixation of the proximal humeral fracture, which has advantages of low risk of infection recurrence, good shoulder function, and satisfactory short-term effectiveness.