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

Single-stage revision for total shoulder arthroplasty infection. Results at a minimum 2 years follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Similar to the management of periprosthetic joint infections of the lower limb, one-stage revision in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) infections is an option that has been highlighted in scientific publications since the early 2010s. However, there are only a few studies which validate this treatment and determine its scope of application in relation to two-stage treatment.

HYPOTHESIS

Single-stage revision for infected TSA is a reliable treatment allowing good infection control and satisfactory functional results.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective series of 34 consecutive patients operated on between 2014 and 2020 for a one-stage prosthetic revision was evaluated at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. All of the patients included underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty during this period with the diagnosis of infection confirmed by microbiological analysis of surgical samples. Patients who did not benefit from a bipolar revision were excluded. All patients were followed at least 2 years after the intervention. Clinically suspected recurrence of infection was confirmed by a periprosthetic sample under radiographic guidance. Functional clinical outcomes as well as mechanical complications were also reported.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 40.4 months (24-102±21.6). A septic recurrence was observed in three patients (8.8%). A mechanical complication was present in four patients (14.7%), and three (11.8%) required at least one surgical revision. The mean Constant-Murley score at the last follow-up was 49 (42-57±21.83).

DISCUSSION

Single-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection results in a success rate of 91.2% with satisfactory functional results after more than 2 years of follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

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.

Does a sign restricting operating room access reduce staff traffic in the surgical department?

INTRODUCTION

Infections following orthopedic surgery are rare but difficult to treat. Among the prevention measures reviewed during the Musculoskeletal Infection Society's (MSIS) 2023 international consensus meeting, the only strategy to obtain 100% agreement was the control of traffic in and out of the operating room (OR). Although this recommendation makes good sense, to our knowledge, it has not been previously investigated in a comparative study. We, therefore, conducted a prospective, observational, before-and-after study of the implementation of an informational sign designed to limit traffic in and out of the OR to (1) determine its impact on door openings and the number of people present during orthopedic surgery and (2) assess the risk of surgical site infection after the institution of this sign.

HYPOTHESIS

This type of sign reduces the number of door openings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational study included all patients operated on in one of our ORs over a 6-week period. The number of entrances and exits from the OR and how long the doors were kept open were recorded during the entire study period. After 3 weeks, an informational sign was posted on the OR doors warning people that unnecessary traffic in and out of the OR increases the risk of infection. During this period, we also recorded the type of procedure, operative time, the number of people in the OR at the time of the incision, and the number of entrances and exits. Patients underwent a follow-up at 2 years to check for postoperative infection. The primary endpoint was the number of OR door openings, and the secondary endpoint was the number of infections at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

The 2 groups (before and after the implementation of the sign) were homogeneous. The average total number of door openings for all ORs was 28.9±19.6 [2-90]. In the no sign group, it was 33.3±20.9 [3-90], and in the sign group, it was 21.0±14.7 [2-50] (p=0.011). The maximum number of people in the OR at one time was 8.32±1.84 [4-12] in the no sign group and 8.44±1.98 [5-12] in the sign group (p=0.8). There were 3 postoperative infections at the 2-year follow-up, all occurring in the no sign group. The infection rate was 6.4% (3/47) in the no sign group versus 0% (0/25) in the sign group (p=0.197).

DISCUSSION

Our prospective study demonstrated a simple strategy to reduce the number of entrances and exits, the number of people in the OR, and potentially the risk of surgery-related infection. Another larger-scale study is needed to assess the exact impact of this type of sign, particularly on the risk of infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; prospective non-randomized comparative study.

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.

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.

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.

Prosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A review of the recent literature

Introduction

Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment for shoulder arthritis. Prosthetic joint infection of the shoulder (PJIS) is a debilitating complication to the patient and the healthcare system. Incidence of infection is 0.98-5% for primary arthroplasty. The mean hospital cost for two-stage revision was approximately $35,824. The aim of this paper is to review the recent literature and collate the latest evidence to aid diagnosis and treatment of this serious complication.

Methods

A literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. A search strategy was adopted using the keywords: 'infection' AND 'shoulder arthroplasty' OR 'total shoulder arthroplasty'OR 'TSA' OR 'reverse shoulder arthroplasty' OR 'RSA' OR 'rTSA'. This initial search resulted in 349 articles. A PRISMA flowchart process was followed. Duplicates were removed, screening was performed and the resulting full texts were analysed and further excluded, leaving 46 articles suitable for inclusion. A PICO search strategy was also used.

Results and interpretation

Risk factors for PJIS include procedure type, trauma indications and patient factors.The organism commonly isolated is Cutebacterium acnes, which makes diagnosis challenging due to its indolent nature. Investigations include biochemical tests, synovial aspirate, tissue cultures and radiological examinations.Treatment depends on the depth of the infection and the patient requirements. Medical treatment with antibiotics to local debridement, cement spacer and revision arthroplasty have all been described in the literature. A multidisciplinary decision is made on the microbiological evidence and patient factors.

Conclusion

PJIS is a rare but potentially devastating complication of shoulder arthroplasty and diagnosis is often challenging. There has been much research performed recently, providing more evidence on how to optimise management.

Assessment of intraoperative bleeding in reverse shoulder arthroplasty - with or without a stem

INTRODUCTION

The functional results of stemless reverse shoulder prostheses are similar to those with stems. However, the operative time and the bleeding appear less significant because of the absence of humeral reaming. To date, the data amongst the literature regarding this subject is limited. Thus, we report a retrospective evaluation on these 2 types of prostheses by assessing their respective intraoperative blood loss.

HYPOTHESIS

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty without a stem leads to less blood loss, compared to arthroplasty with a stem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-three patients underwent an operation for a stemless prosthesis, while 37 patients had a prosthesis with a stem. The hemoglobin was measured preoperatively, as well as postoperatively. Drainage of the operative site was maintained for two to three days. In the stem group, the preoperative hemoglobin was 14g/dL (11.7-16.6), while it was 13.1g/dL (11-15.8) in the stemless group.

RESULTS

The intraoperative bleeding reached 223cm³ (80-530), with an operative duration of 81minutes (40-110) in the stemless group, compared to 260cm³ (50-1000) and 92minutes (33-110) in the stem group. On the first day postoperatively, 333cm³ (20-570) of blood had been collected by drainage for the stemless group, compared to 279cm³ (40-550) in the stem group. The amount decreased the second day, with 139cm³ (20-510) and 129cm³ (0-750) respectively. There was no difference between the two groups regarding the postoperative hemoglobin level (11g/dL).

DISCUSSION

There is no significant difference concerning the blood loss between reverse shoulder replacements with and without stems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III Retrospective case control study.

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.