What are the Factors Associated with Re-revision After One-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip? A Case-control Study

The John Charnley Award: The Impact of Human Leukocyte Antigen Genotype on Bacterial Infection Rates and Successful Eradication in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Genetics play an important role in several medical domains; however, the influence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype on the development of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine if HLA genotype is associated with the development of bacterial PJI in THA. Secondarily, we evaluated the association between HLA genotype and PJI treatment success.

METHODS

A retrospective, matched, case-control study was performed using prospectively collected data from a single institution. A total of 49 patients who underwent primary THA were included, with a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range, 4.2 to 12.9). The 23 cases (PJI) and 26 controls (no PJI) were matched for age, sex, follow-up, body mass index, primary diagnosis, and comorbidities (P > .05). High-resolution genetic analysis targeting 11 separate HLA loci was performed in all patients using serum samples. The HLA gene frequencies and carriage rates were determined and compared between cohorts. A subgroup analysis of PJI treatment success (18) and failure (5) was performed. Statistical significance was set at P = .10 for genetic analysis and at 0.05 for all other analyses.

RESULTS

There were 4 HLA alleles that were significantly associated with the development of PJI. The 3 at-risk alleles included HLA-C∗06:02 (odds ratio 5.25, 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.96 to 28.6, P = .064), HLA-DQA1∗04:01 (P = .096), and HLA-DQB1∗04:02 (P = .096). The single protective allele was HLA-C∗03:04 (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10, P = .052). There were no specific HLA alleles that were associated with treatment success or failure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there are at-risk and protective HLA alleles associated with the development of PJI in THA. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate an association between patient HLA genotype and the development of PJI. A larger study of the subject matter is necessary and warranted.

Advancements in treatment strategies for periprosthetic joint infections: A comprehensive review

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a critical challenge in orthopedic care, contributing to significant patient morbidity and healthcare costs. This burden is expected to increase secondary to growing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Despite the profound significance of PJI, there is currently no universally accepted "gold standard" diagnostic criteria using serum biomarker thresholds; latest criteria fail to differentiate acute infections from chronic or consider time since initial surgery. Furthermore, contemporary PJI treatment, which conventionally requires 2-stage revision surgery in conjunction with rigorous antibiotic treatment, can be particularly taxing on patients. Fortunately, recent years have seen marked evolution in both PJI diagnosis and treatment methods. Contemporary research supports time-dependent serum biomarker thresholds with greater sensitivity and specificity than previously reported, as well as alternative surgical options which may be more suitable for certain patients. The following narrative review aims to describe the significance and pathogenesis of PJI before characterizing current challenges, novel innovations, and the future landscape of PJI diagnosis and management. Here, we spotlight the emerging utility of novel biomarkers and metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosis, advancements in patient-centered surgical outcome prediction tools for PJI risk assessment and prevention, and evolving surgical techniques including 1-stage and a "hybrid" 1.5-stage revision surgeries. Additionally, we explore cutting-edge therapeutic modalities including peptide and bacteriophage-based treatments, intraoperative anti-biofilm gel, the VT-X7 antibiotic pump, and promising immune-based interventions. Ultimately, these advancements hold the potential to revolutionize PJI management, offering hope for improved outcomes and reduced burdens on healthcare systems.

Periprosthetic hip infection: Current concepts and the Wrightington experience

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a highly successful operation performed worldwide in increasing numbers for a wide range of indications. There has been a corresponding rise in the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip (PJIH), which is a devastating complication. There is a significant variation in the definition, diagnosis and management of PJIH largely due to a lack of high-level evidence. The current standard of practice is largely based on cohort studies from high-volume centres, consensus publications amongst subject experts, and national guidance. This review describes our philosophy and practical approach of managing PJIH at a regional tertiary high-volume joint replacement centre.

Risk Factors and Microbiological Profile of Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections With Sinus Tract

BACKGROUND

A sinus tract is an abnormal channel that communicates between the skin and the joint, and meets one of the major criteria that is diagnostic of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to compare the risk factors and the microorganism profile of PJI of the knee with an overlying sinus tract to PJI without a sinus tract.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of PJI following total knee arthroplasty with and without the presence of an overlying sinus tract from 1996 to 2020. There were 2,685 unique cases of chronic PJI following total knee arthroplasty, of which 405 cases (15.1%) had a sinus tract and 2,280 cases (84.9%) did not. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors and the microorganism profiles of the 2 groups. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounders in the multivariate analysis, the presence of a sinus tract was associated with a history of severe liver disease (P = .039; odds ratio: 1.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 3.84). Polymicrobial infections comprised 41.7% of PJI in the sinus tract group, compared to 29.1% in patients who did not have a sinus tract (P < .001). Of the monomicrobial PJI, Staphylococcus aureus (P < .001), Enterococcus faecalis (P < .001), Enterobacter cloacae (P = .002), Corynebacterium species (P = .037), Proteus mirabilis (P = .028), coagulase-negative Staphylococci (P = .019), and Candida albicans (P = .029) were more common in patients who had a sinus tract.

CONCLUSIONS

The microbiology profile is significantly different in patients who have PJI of the knee with a sinus tract. These findings can guide the surgeon with surgical planning and selecting the appropriate antibiotic-loaded bone cement and empiric antibiotic treatment.

Effect of Multiantibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Arthroplasties-A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Two-stage septic revision is the prevailing method for addressing late periprosthetic infections. Using at least dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement leads to synergistic effects with a more efficient elution of individual antibiotics. Recent data on the success rates of multiantibiotic cement spacers in two-stage revisions are rare.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective follow-up single-center study involving 250 patients with late periprosthetic hip infections and 95 patients with prosthetic knee infections who underwent septic two-stage prosthesis revision surgery between 2017 and 2021. In accordance with the antibiotic susceptibility profile of the microorganisms, a specific mixture of antibiotics within the cement spacer was used, complemented by systemic antibiotic treatment. All patients underwent preoperative assessments and subsequent evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post operation and at the most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

During the observation period, the survival rate after two-step septic revision was 90.7%. Although survival rates tended to be slightly lower for difficult-to-treat (DTT) microorganism, there was no difference between the pathogen groups (easy-to-treat (ETT) pathogens, methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens). Furthermore, there were no differences between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. No difference in the survival rate was observed between patients with dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement without an additional admixture (Copal® G+C and Copal® G+V) and patients with an additional admixture of antibiotics to proprietary cement.

CONCLUSION

Employing multiple antibiotics within spacer cement, tailored to pathogen susceptibility, appears to provide reproducibly favorable success rates, even in instances of infections with DTT pathogens and polymicrobial infections.

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.

Increased Involvement of Staphylococcus epidermidis in the Rise of Polymicrobial Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to analyze the temporal distribution of polymicrobial periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), while also evaluating the patient risk factors associated with these infections following total joint arthroplasty at our institution across 2 distinct periods.

METHOD

This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated 259 patients who had knee or hip PJI from 2001 to 2006 and 2018 to 2022. A PJI was diagnosed using the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. We utilized the Polymicrobial Pathogens' Co-occurrence Network Analysis, a novel approach that leverages network theory to map and quantify the complex interplay of organisms in PJIs.

RESULTS

Of the 259 patients who had polymicrobial PJI, 58.7% were men, with mean age 67 years (range, 24 to 90). Of the 579 identified pathogens, Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common (22.1%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (9.0%) and Cutibacterium acnes (7.8%). The co-occurrence analysis indicated that Staphylococcus epidermidis frequently coexisted with Cutibacterium acnes (26 cultures) and Staphylococcus capitis (22 cultures). A notable increase in body mass index from 27.7 ± 4.4 in 2001 to 2006 to 29.7 ± 6.2 in 2018 to 2022 was observed (P = .001). Moreover, infections from Staphylococcus epidermidis, Cutibacterium acnes, and Staphylococcus capitis saw a significant uptick (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that from 2001 to 2022, there was a significant change in the pathogens responsible for polymicrobial PJIs, particularly an increase in Staphylococcus epidermidis, Cutibacterium acnes, and Staphylococcus capitis. Alongside these microbial changes, there was a rise in body mass index and shifts in comorbid conditions, such as more renal disease and fewer cases of congestive heart failure. These changes highlight the dynamic interplay between host and microbial factors in the pathogenesis of polymicrobial PJIs, necessitating adaptive strategies in both surgical and postoperative care to mitigate the rising tide of these complex infections.

Bacterial pathogens and in-hospital mortality in revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee: analysis of 346 patients

INTRODUCTION

The management of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the lower limb is challenging, and evidence-based recommendations are lacking. The present clinical investigation characterized the pathogens diagnosed in patients who underwent revision surgery for  PJI of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

The present study follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The institutional databases of the RWTH University Medical Centre of Aachen, Germany, were accessed. The OPS (operation and procedure codes) 5-823 and 5-821 and the ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) codes T84.5, T84.7 or T84.8 were used. All patients with PJI of a previous THA and TKA who underwent revision surgery were retrieved and included for analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 346 patients were collected (181 THAs and 165 TKAs). 44% (152 of 346 patients) were women. Overall, the mean age at operation was 67.8 years, and the mean BMI was 29.2 kg/m2. The mean hospitalization length was 23.5 days. 38% (132 of 346) of patients presented a recurrent infection.

CONCLUSION

PJI remain a frequent cause for revisions after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Preoperative synovial fluid aspiration was positive in 37%, intraoperative microbiology was positive in 85%, and bacteraemia was present in 17% of patients. Septic shock was the major cause of in-hospital mortality. The most common cultured pathogens were Staph. epidermidis, Staph. aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA). An improved understanding of PJI pathogens is important to plan treatment strategies and guide the choice of empirical antibiotic regimens in patients presenting with septic THAs and TKAs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

Description of surgical treatment methods of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections in the Chinese mainland: a national multi-centre survey

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious hip and knee arthroplasty complication. Despite the increased incidence of primary joint replacements, there is no clear guideline for treating PJI in the Chinese mainland yet. We aim to measure the current situation and basis for surgical treatment methods of PJI in major orthopaedic hospitals in the Chinese mainland.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey on PJI treatment in Mainland China. Forty-one top arthroplasty centers were included, with 82.9% (34/41) response rate. The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel version 20.0 and described as numbers and percentages.

RESULTS

For acute infections, prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR) are used in all centres. For hip and knee PJI, 20.5% (7/34) and 35% (12/34) of the centres used a one-stage exchange. If applied, this treatment will necessitate the previous patients' selection for a satisfactory outcome. All centres execute the two-stage exchange. Between phases, the majority of centres implant a cemented spacer. Revisions for infected hips included 21 (4.3%) cases of DAIR, 95 (19.9%) cases of single-stage exchange, 362 (75.2%) cases of two-stage exchange, and 2 (0.007%) cases of hip dissection. Revisions for infected knee comprised 88 (19.0%) cases of DAIR, 48 (10.3%) cases of single-stage exchange, 324 (69.8%) cases of two-stage exchange, and 5 (0.02%) cases of knee fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The centers do not have a uniform PJI standard. Most patients have two-stage revision with a cemented spacer in China. These concepts can help establish treatment guidelines.

Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7-8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9-9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0-19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7-19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias.

CONCLUSION

The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

Machine learning models accurately predict recurrent infection following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and validate machine-learning models for the prediction of recurrent infection in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

A total of 618 consecutive patients underwent revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. The patient cohort included 165 patients with confirmed recurrent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Potential risk factors including patient demographics and surgical characteristics served as input to three machine-learning models which were developed to predict recurrent periprosthetic joint. The machine-learning models were assessed by discrimination, calibration and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The factors most significantly associated with recurrent PJI in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for PJI included irrigation and debridement with/without modular component exchange (p < 0.001), > 4 prior open surgeries (p < 0.001), metastatic disease (p < 0.001), drug abuse (p < 0.001), HIV/AIDS (p < 0.01), presence of Enterococcus species (p < 0.01) and obesity (p < 0.01). The machine-learning models all achieved excellent performance across discrimination (AUC range 0.81-0.84).

CONCLUSION

This study developed three machine-learning models for the prediction of recurrent infections in patients following revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. The strongest predictors were previous irrigation and debridement with or without modular component exchange and prior open surgeries. The study findings show excellent model performance, highlighting the potential of these computational tools in quantifying increased risks of recurrent PJI to optimize patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

External validation study of hip peri-prosthetic joint infection with cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS)

INTRODUCTION

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) has been described for use in the first of 2-stage treatment. We report our outcomes of managing PJI using CUMARS.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1st-stage revision using the Exeter standard stem, all-polyethylene acetabulum and antibiotic-loaded cement were identified. Medical records were assessed for demographics, microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and reoperations. No postoperative restrictions were enforced. 2nd-stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence.

RESULTS

53 patients underwent 1st-stage revision using this technique. The average follow-up was 3.9 (range 0.5-7.2) years. Infection was eradicated in 47 (88.7%) patients. 2 patients had chronic infection managed with suppressive antibiotics, 2 patients died before eradication confirmed, 1 patient had raised inflammatory markers but no positive aspiration cultures, 1 patient was lost to follow-up. Complications occurred in 5 (9.4%) patients - 4 dislocations and 1 infected haematoma. 4 patients required a repeated 1st stage. 2nd-stage revision was performed in 19 patients (35%).

CONCLUSIONS

The CUMARS technique is an effective way of eradicating PJI after THA. It maintains function by providing a stable construct that permits weight-bearing. It delays or negates the need for 2nd-stage revision. Furthermore, it allows surgeons to choose between managing patients prospectively as a single-stage revision with the option of reverting to a 2nd stage.

Septic Failure After One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: Microbiological Implications

BACKGROUND

The microbiological implications of septic failure after 1-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip remain unclear.

METHODS

Information was gathered on comorbidities, previous procedures, preoperative and postoperative microbiology results, methods of detection, and antibiotic resistance patterns, for all patients, who developed septic failure after 1-stage exchange for PJI of the hip performed at our institution during 2001-2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were identified. Septic failure was diagnosed a mean of 1.7 (standard deviation 2.3, range 0-11.8) years later. Although the spectrum of microorganisms was similar to preoperative, in the majority of patients (55%), the initial microorganism(s) was (were) replaced by (a) totally different microorganism(s). Overall, there was a decrease in the number of polymicrobial PJIs. The number of patients with high virulent microorganisms decreased significantly from 52 to 36 (P = .034). The number of PJIs due to gram-negative pathogens remained similar (11 vs 14, P = .491). The number of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci, fluoroquinolone-resistant streptococci, enterococci, and fungi changed from 8 to 15, 0 to 2, 7 to 3, and 1 to 2, respectively, but these changes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The majority of reinfections is caused by different infecting bacteria, hence it is essential to perform a new diagnostic workup and not base treatment decisions (solely) on historical cultures. We were furthermore unable to irrefutably prove that, from a microbiological point of view, septic failure after 1-stage exchange comes with increased challenges. Given the time interval to failure, we propose that a longer follow-up of these patients is needed, than previously suggested.

The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation = 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system.

RESULTS

At the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n = 11), compared with 28% (n = 14) in group 1, 29% (n = 7) in group 3, and 26% (n = 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P = .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P = .107). Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.

Short-term results of treatment of staphylococcal periprosthetic hip joint infection with combined antibiotics and bacteriophages treatment

Infectious complications after primary implantation of the hip joint are 0.5–3 %, and in the case of re-endoprosthetics, the risk of periprosthetic infection can reach 30 %. Also, we should not forget about the high percentage (16–20 %) of recurrence of periprosthetic infection of the hip joint, which leads to an unsatisfactory result of treatment up to amputation of a limb or even death of the patient. The reasons for the recurrence of the infectious process can be antibiotic resistance and antibiotic tolerance of microorganisms, as well as the ability of microorganisms to form biofilms on implants. In this regard, there is a constant need to search for alternative means of antimicrobial therapy, as well as to select the optimal ways of their delivery and deposition, which is of practical importance when performing surgical interventions in traumatology and orthopedics to protect the implantable structure from possible infection of the surgical site. One of the methods currently available to combat bacterial infections acquired antibiotic resistance and antibiotic tolerance is the use of natural viruses that infect bacterial bacteriophages. The above suggests a more effective suppression of periprosthetic infection, including persisters that deviate from antibiotics. It is, as a rule, associated with biofilms if used in conjunction with antibiotics and phages, when the use of bacteriophages predetermines the effectiveness of treatment. With the use of sensitive bacteriophages in the treatment of periprosthetic infections, a significant (p = 0.030) reduction in the rate of recurrence of infection (from 31 to 4.5 %) was observed. The use of lytic bacteriophages in traumatology and orthopedics is of great interest for phagotherapy of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant and biofilm-forming strains of bacteria. A clinical study using a single-stage surgical revision with simultaneous application of antibiotics and phages in the treatment of deep periprosthesis infection of the hip joint endoprosthesis, followed by 12 months follow-up for periprosthetic infection recurrence, demonstrated the effectiveness of the use of combined antibiotic and bacteriophages treatment.

One-stage exchange should be avoided in periprosthetic joint infection cases with massive femoral bone loss or with history of any failed revision to treat periprosthetic joint infection

AIMS

There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247-1253.

Is Preoperative Identification of the Infecting Organism Essential Before Single-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection?

BACKGROUND

It is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism.

METHODS

We identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77).

RESULTS

The reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases.

CONCLUSION

The rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.

High Rate of Reinfection With New Bacteria Following One-Stage Exchange for Enterococcal Periprosthetic Infection of the Knee: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

A wide range of success rates following the surgical management of enterococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with a tendency toward worse outcomes have been reported. However, the role of 1-stage exchange remains under-investigated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate our results after the 1-stage knee exchange for enterococcal PJI.

METHODS

Forty patients were retrospectively included between 2002 and 2017 with a mean follow-up of survivors of 80 months (range 22-172; standard deviation [SD] = 5). Polymicrobial infections occurred in 45% (18/40) of patients. Patients' characteristics, joint-related data, and antibiotic therapy were recorded. Rates of enterococcal infection relapse, reinfection with new microorganisms, and re-revision for any reason were determined. Bivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors of infection recurrence.

RESULTS

Revision surgery was required in 22 cases (55%) with a mean time to revision surgery of 27 months (range 1-78; SD = 25). Indications for aseptic revisions (18%) included aseptic loosening (10%), periprosthetic fracture (5%), and patellar instability (3%). The most common cause of re-revision was a subsequent PJI (15/22; 68%) after a mean time of 22 months (range 1-77; SD = 24). Overall infection recurrence rate was 37.5% (15/40), substantially due to entirely non-enterococcal infections (9/15; 60%). Infection relapse with Enterococci occurred in 4 cases (10%) within 16 months postoperatively. Older patients (P = .05) and male gender (P = .05) were associated with a higher risk of infection recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Overcoming the Enterococci using the 1-stage exchange for knee PJI is achievable but the rate of reinfection due to new microorganisms is high . However, the overall infection recurrence rate is comparable to other treatment approaches.

Development of a Preoperative Risk Calculator for Reinfection Following Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

A recent systematic review demonstrated that reinfection rates following eradication of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be as high as 29%. This study aimed to develop a preoperative risk calculator for assessing patient's individual risk associated with reinfection following treatment of PJI in total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A total of 1081 consecutive patients who underwent revision TJA for PJI were evaluated. In total, 293 patients were diagnosed with TJA reinfection. A total of 56 risk factors, including patient characteristics and surgical variables, were evaluated with multivariate regression analysis. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was performed to evaluate the strength of the predictive model.

RESULTS

Of the 56 risk factors studied, 19 were found to have a significant effect as risk factor for TJA reinfection. The strongest predictors for TJA reinfection included previous PJI treatment techniques such as irrigation and debridement, the number of previous surgical interventions, medical comorbidities such as obesity, drug abuse, depression and smoking, as well as microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species. The combined area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of the risk calculator for periprosthetic hip and knee joint reinfection was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings demonstrate that surgical factors, including previous PJI surgical treatment techniques as well as the number of previous surgeries, alongside microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species have the strongest effect on the risk for periprosthetic THA and TKA joint reinfection, suggesting the limited applicability of the existing risk calculators for the development of PJI following primary TJA in predicting the risk of periprosthetic joint reinfection.

Treatment options in PJI - is two-stage still gold standard?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful treatment for osteoarthritis with good clinical outcomes 1,2. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA has a low incidence between 0.5 and 3% but it is nevertheless one of the most dreadful complications 3-6. Two-staged revisions are considered to be the gold standard for revision in chronic PJI with infection eradication rates of over 90% 7. Recently, similar infection eradication rates after one-staged revision arthroplasty have been reported 8-10, raising the question whether the two-staged approach can still be considered the gold standard. We therefore performed a literature review to analyse the correlation of one-staged and two-staged TKA revisions with recurrent infection rates and functional outcomes. Studies concerning PJI treated by one- or two-staged revision published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved by searching the databases PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 29 studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. Mean follow-up was at 4.9 ± 2.6 years. The mean infection eradication rate after one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 87 ± 8.8% vs. 83 ± 11.7%. The functional outcome measured by the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) of one-staged revision vs. two-staged revision in TKA was 80 ± 5.9 vs. 80 ± 3.9 points. One-staged revision arthroplasty in TKA appears to have similar infection eradication rates and functional outcomes compared to two-staged revision arthroplasty. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since selection bias may have played a significant role. Several criteria to guide the surgeon in selecting the appropriate procedure have been described, but the current recommendations are based on poor evidence as randomized controlled trials are lacking 11,12. Two-staged revision remains a successful treatment option which is rightly the gold standard. However, there is a variety of cases in which one-staged revision is a viable alternative, where similar success rates and functional outcome can be expected 7,13.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Fistulizing Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: An Effective Strategy

Background: Prosthetic hip infection (PHI) is a disastrous scenario after an arthroplasty. International guidelines contraindicate one-stage exchange arthroplasty for fistulizing chronic prosthetic hip infection (FCPHI), nevertheless few surgical teams, mostly from Europe, support one stage procedure for this indication.

Questions/Purposes: Analysis of infection recurrence and implant failure of a series of FCPHIs treated with one stage arthroplasty.

Patients and Methods: Sixty-six FCPHIs treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty were prospectively followed up at least 2 years. Clinical, radiological and bacteriological signs suggestive of reinfection were sought, as well as implant failures and PHI related deaths.

Results: Thirty-four females and thirty-two males with median age of 69.5 years [61–77] and BMI of 26 kg/m² [22-31] were included. Fistulae were productive in 50 patients (76%). Staphylococcus was responsible for 45% of PHI and 21% were polymicrobial. Twenty-nine patients (44%) received preoperative antibiotic therapy. After a median 60-month follow-up [35–82], 3 patients (4.5%) presented reinfection (two new infections, one relapse) and 3 patients experienced implant failure (1 femoral fracture, 1 stem breakage, 1 recurrent dislocation). One death was related to PHI. After a minimum of 2 years, the infection control rate was of 95.3% (±0.02).

Conclusion: One-stage exchange arthroplasty for FCPHIs showed a good infection control rate similar to that of non-fistulizing PHI. Systematic preoperative microbiological documentation with joint aspiration and, in some specific cases, the use of preoperative antibiotic therapy are among the optimizations accounting for the success of the one-stage arthroplasty. In light of these results, and those of other studies, international recommendations could evolve.

Level of Evidence: Descriptive therapeutic prospective cohort study. Level of evidence: IV.

Improved treatment strategies can result in better outcomes following one-stage exchange surgery for MRSA periprosthetic joint infection

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-PJIs) are rare, with only a few studies reporting the treatment outcomes and even fewer reporting outcomes with one-stage exchange.Aim. This study aims to analyse the outcomes of one-stage exchange in the management of MRSA-PJIs.Methodology. Patients with MRSA-PJI of the hip and knee, who were treated with a one-stage exchange between 2001 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. The final cohort comprised of 29 patients, which included 23 hips and six knees. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1-9 years). Reinfection and complications rates after the one-stage exchange were analysed.Results. Overall infection control could be achieved in 93.1 % (27 out of 29 patients). The overall revision rate was 31.0% (9 patients), with three patients requiring an in-hospital revision (10.3 %). Six patients had to be revised after hospital discharge (20.7 %). Of the two reinfections, one had a growth of MRSA while the other was of methicillin-sensitive Staphyloccocus epidermidis.Conclusion. One-stage exchange surgery using current techniques could improve surgical outcomes with excellent results in the management of MRSA-PJIs.