Flash Sterilization and Component Reimplantation Is a Viable Option for Articulating Antibiotic Spacers in Periprosthetic Knee Infections

Improve Integration of In Vitro Biofilm Body of Knowledge to Support Clinical Breakthroughs in Surgical Site Infection

Prosthetics increase the risk of deep surgical site infections in procedures intended to restore function. In orthopaedics, prosthetic joint infections can lead to repetitive surgeries, amputation, or worse. Biofilm formation both in vitro and in vivo involves stages of attachment, accumulation, and maturation. The level of maturation affects susceptibility to antibiotics, the immune system, and the success of surgical interventions. A review of the literature indicates that orthopedic publications are less likely to mention biofilm. We have reviewed animal models of infection to assess in vivo models of prosthetic infection. Although most prosthetic infections seem to originate from local skin microbiota, clinically representative biofilm inocula are unusual. Biofilm-related end points are more widely adopted, but studies rarely include both quantification of adherent microbial burden and imaging of the in vivo biofilm. Failure to differentiate between planktonic and biofilm infections can skew research away from needed chronic disease models. In this review, we address prosthetic joint infections as an important model for chronic biofilm infection research, identify critical requirements for in vivo models of chronic infection, and propose that resistance to the terminology of biofilm research exists within both research and regulation, which could limit progress toward important orthopaedic targets.

The autoclaving and re-implantation of an infected prosthesis as a spacer during resection knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Background

Hofmann et al., in 1995, first described an articulating spacer made by cleaning and autoclaving the original femoral component, which is then re-implanted with a new tibial polyethylene. This systematic review aims to assess the state of existing evidence on the intraoperative autoclaving and re-use of an infected prosthesis, as a spacer, during a two-stage revision following Periprosthetic Joint Infections (PJI).

Methods

A systematic review was conducted with methods described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. OVID-MEDLINE^®, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed were searched from 1995 to April 2020 to identify relevant studies.

Results

Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review: two prospective case series; six retrospective comparative studies and six retrospective case series. The reviewed studies included 567 patients (571 knees): 394 patients treated with autoclaved components and 173 with a spacer made of new components. The cumulative re-infection rate in patients treated with re-used autoclaved components was 13.7% (54 re-infections in 394 patients), whereas in control patients the re-infection rate was 13.3% (23 re-infections in 173 patients). The final Range of Movement in patients treated using the autoclaved components as a spacer, compared with patients receiving static spacers, was significantly higher in three out of four comparative studies.

Conclusion

There is a moderate level of evidence that the intraoperative autoclaving and re-use of an infected prosthesis as a spacer, during a knee resection arthroplasty, is an effective procedure in the management of knee PJI.