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

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.

Serratia marcescens prosthetic joint infection: two case reports and a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Despite some studies on Gram-negative bacteria as difficult to treat pathogens in periprosthetic joint infections, there are no detailed analyses on Serratia periprosthetic joint infections. As such, we present two cases of Serratia periprosthetic joint infections and summarize all known cases to date in the course of a PRISMA criteria-based systematic review.

CASE PRESENTATION

Case 1: a 72-year-old Caucasian female with Parkinson's disease and treated breast cancer developed periprosthetic joint infection caused by Serratia marcescens and Bacillus cereus, following multiple prior revisions for recurrent dislocations of her total hip arthroplasty. Two-stage exchange was performed, and the patient remained free of Serratia periprosthetic joint infection recurrence at 3 years. Case 2: an 82-year-old Caucasian female with diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presented with a chronic parapatellar knee fistula after undergoing multiple failed infection treatments at external clinics. After performing two-stage exchange and gastrocnemius flap plastic for combined Serratia marcescens and Proteus mirabilis periprosthetic joint infection, the patient was released without any signs of infection, but was subsequently lost to follow-up.

REVIEW

a total of 12 additional Serratia periprosthetic joint infections were identified. Merged with our two cases, the mean age of 14 patients was 66 years and 75% were males. Mean length of antibiotic therapy was 10 weeks with ciprofloxacin most commonly used (50%). Mean follow-up was 23 months. There was a total of four reinfections (29%), including one case of Serratia reinfection (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Serratia is a rare cause of periprosthetic joint infection affecting elderly with secondary diseases. While the overall reinfection rate was high, the risk of Serratia periprosthetic joint infection persistence was low. Treatment failure in patients may be attributable to the host, rather than the Serratia periprosthetic joint infection itself, thus challenging current concepts on Gram-negatives as a uniform class of difficult-to-treat pathogens.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level IV.

Success of staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in eradication of periprosthetic joint infection

INTRODUCTION

Management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge, with no established gold standard treatment. This study presents the unique experience of a high-volume single-surgeon, single-institution approach on staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for infection. The authors theorize that staged revision RTSA is an effective treatment for PJI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, 38 patients underwent a staged RTSA for treatment of PJI. Patient histories were collected and classified using Cierny-Mader classification. Infection workup for all patients included radiographs, laboratory indices, and computed tomographic aspiration arthrogram. PJI was identified based on high clinical and radiographic suspicion, elevated serologic markers, and/or aspirate culture results per 2018 International Consensus Meeting Shoulder guidelines on Orthopedic Infections. All patients underwent first stage with implant removal, irrigation and débridement, and antibiotic spacer placement. Next, intravenous antibiotics were administered by infectious disease consultants for a minimum of 6 weeks. Infection workup was then repeated and, if normalized, final-stage revision commenced with antibiotic spacer removal and revision to RTSA. If indices were persistently abnormal, an additional stage of débridement and spacer placement procedure was performed. Treatment failure was defined as recurrent periprosthetic infection after final prosthesis implantation or persistently elevated indices despite adequate débridement and spacer placement.

RESULTS

Mean age of the cohort was 68 (standard deviation [SD] 8.9) years and mean follow-up was 33 (SD 14) months with 34 Cierny-Mader C hosts and 4 B hosts. Patients underwent a mean of 2 (SD 1.1) previous surgeries. The staged revision protocol was successful in 34 (89.5%) patients for management of PJI. Four patients (10.5%) were considered failures with recurrent infections at a mean of 13 months (range 2-26 months) after the final RTSA implantation and underwent repeat staged revisions. Of the 34 patients who had successful infection eradication, 31 had 2-stage treatment and 3 had to undergo 3 stages. There were no treatment-associated mortalities and 10 major complications (26%), including permanent neuropathy, instability, and periprosthetic fractures. The most common cultured microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes (18%), with no polymicrobial infections detected.

DISCUSSION

Although there are multiple treatment options for PJI management, staged revision remains an effective means of treatment. Although there were several patients who required an additional stage of treatment, and a significant complication rate, staged revision RTSA proved successful in the ultimate eradication of the PJI.

Antibiotic Spacers for Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Review

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

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.