Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

High and Low Dosage of Vancomycin in Polymethylmethacrylate Cements: Efficacy and Mechanical Properties

INTRODUCTION

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are difficult to treat and represent a significant burden to the healthcare system. Two-stage revision surgery with placement of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is currently the gold standard for treatment in the United States for late-onset infections. We evaluate the efficacy of varying doses of vancomycin added to antibiotic-containing acrylic cement spacers and discuss the biomechanical and antimicrobial properties of using high versus low doses of vancomycin in cement spacers in the hip and knee.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Commercially available Copal cement containing either gentamicin and clindamycin (G + C) or gentamicin and vancomycin (G + V) was prepared with the manual addition of low (2 g) and high (6 g) doses of vancomycin. In vitro mechanical testing was then carried out according to ISO 5833 and DIN 53435, as well as inhibition zone assays against common PJI pathogens. Additionally, inhibition zone assays were conducted on two commercially available prefabricated spacers containing gentamicin: Copal Exchange G and Cemex Spacer-K.

RESULTS

In biomechanical testing, Copal G + V with the addition of 6 g of vancomycin failed to meet the ISO standard. Copal G + C and Copal G + V with low and high dosages of vancomycin were all effective against the tested pathogens and displayed constant efficacy for a duration of 42 days. High doses of vancomycin showed significantly lower mechanical stability. Moreover, Copal Exchange G showed significantly larger inhibition zones across 42 days.

DISCUSSION

While higher concentrations of vancomycin appear to improve the antimicrobial efficacy of cement, they also reduce its mechanical stability. Despite its smoother surface, the Copal Exchange G spacer exhibits large inhibition zones after 1 day and maintains consistently large inhibition zones over 6 weeks. Thus, it may be preferred for use in two-stage revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Copal Exchange G is more effective than Cemex Spacer K against S. aureus and E. coli. The manual addition of vancomycin to cement containing double antibiotics is very effective. The influence on ISO compression is low, the ISO bending modulus is increased, and ISO bending, DIN bending, and DIN impact, are reduced.

[Tips and tricks of cement removal in the case of revision surgery]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, current revision rates after arthroplasty range between 28-37%. In particular, remaining cement residues are causative for additional revision surgery after periprosthetic joint infection, which is why complete cement removal is of high importance. However, the removal of remaining cement residues often confronts the surgeon with technical challenges. Complication-free and complete cement removal requires extensive preoperative preparation in order to develop the best possible surgical strategy.

TREATMENT

Special instrument sets to facilitate cement removal in revision cases are available from various manufacturers. In addition to endoluminal approaches, access enhancements such as extended osteotomies exist to facilitate complete cement removal. Finally, the surgeon should be able to give the indication for an intraoperative procedural change after a defined time interval.

Efficacy of ibuprofen and indomethacin as prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification: a comparative study

The prophylactic action of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in heterotopic ossification (HO) was first described following analgesic therapy with indomethacin. Following that evidence, several compounds have been successfully used for prophylaxes of HO. Ibuprofen has been also proposed for the prevention of HO following THA. The present study compared the administration of ibuprofen for three weeks versus indomethacin as prophylaxis for HO following primary THA. In all THA procedures, pre- and post-operative protocols were conducted in a highly standardized fashion. The type of HO prophylaxis (indomethacin 100 mg/daily or ibuprofen 100 mg/daily) was chosen according to a chronological criterion: from 2017 to 2019 indomethacin was used, whereas from 2019 to 2022 ibuprofen was administered. In case of allergy or intolerance to NSAIDs, no prophylaxis was performed, and patients were included as a control group. All patients who underwent an anteroposterior radiography of the pelvis at a minimum of 12 months following THA were considered for inclusion. On admission, the age and sex of the patients were recorded. Moreover, the causes of osteoarthritis and the date of surgery were recorded. The grade of HO was assigned by a blinded assessor who was not involved in the clinical management of the patients. The modified Brooker Staging System was used to rate the efficacy of the interventions. Data from 1248 patients were collected. 62% (767 of 1248 patients) were women. The mean age was 67.0 ± 2.9 years. The mean follow-up was 21.1 ± 10.8 months. In the ibuprofen group, 73% of patients evidenced Brooker 0, 17% Brooker I, and 10% Brooker II. In the indomethacin group, 77% of patients evidenced Brooker 0, 16% Brooker I, 6% Brooker II. No patient in the ibuprofen and indomethacin group developed Brooker III or IV. In the control group, 64% of patients evidenced Brooker 0, 21% Brooker I, 3% Brooker II, and 12% Brooker III. No patient in the control group developed Brooker IV HO. Concluding, three weeks of administration of ibuprofen demonstrated similar efficacy to indomethacin in preventing HO following primary THA. The prophylaxis with ibuprofen or indomethacin was more effective in preventing HO compared to a control group who did not receive any pharmacological prophylaxis.

Haemophilus influenzae infection of a prosthetic knee joint in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis : A case report

A 60-year-old female was admitted to internal medicine with a painful left knee after a fall and pneumonia. She had undergone a primary cemented left total knee arthroplasty in 2019 and a right cemented total knee arthroplasty in 2021. She had also a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with steroids and a Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor (upadacitinib). On admission intravenous antibiotic therapy was started for the treatment of pneumonia (piperacillin/tazobactam). Because of the persistent left knee pain, a knee puncture was carried out and confirmed a periprosthetic infection. A peripheral blood culture taken on admission day showed Haemophilus influenzae. She underwent a knee arthrotomy with debridement, irrigation, explantation of the knee prosthesis and spacer placement. Intraoperative cultures showed Haemophilus influenzae. The isolate was identified as a nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae strain by the reference laboratory. Haemophilus influenzae strains rarely cause invasive diseases. Rheumatoid arthritis with immunosuppressive therapy may have predisposed this patient to severe invasive disease. The clinical presentation of an infection may differ markedly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from that in patients without rheumatoid arthritis or immunosuppression.

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty in clinical practice: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Between 2 and 20% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) report restricted motion and anterior knee pain. Non-optimal alignment of the implant components is a common cause of such complaints. Robotic-assisted TKA has been advocated to improve the accuracy of component positioning to match patients' anatomy and biomechanics. However, the advantages of robotic surgery over conventional freehand TKA are still unclear. The present study is a protocol for a single-blind clinical trial in which patients will be randomly allocated to undergo either robotic-assisted TKA or conventional freehand TKA. A restricted kinematic alignment with medial para-stellar approach shall be made in all patients. The present study follows the SPIRIT guidelines. The primary outcome of interest is to compare robotic TKA versus traditional freehand TKA in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), length of hospitalisation, blood values, blood transfusion units, and range of motion. The second outcome of interest is to evaluate the accuracy of component positioning of robotic-assisted TKA compared to the conventional freehand TKA.Level of evidence Level I, randomised controlled trial.Registration German Registry of Clinical Trials (ID: DRKS00030614).

Diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infection after hip replacement (a review)

Introduction. The frequency of hip arthroplasty is steadily increasing throughout the world and, although this operation has become routine, the likelihood of postoperative complications reaches 4.3 % [1]. The most dangerous of them are infectious lesions in the area of the endoprosthesis and adjacent tissues. At the same time, in addition to the threat of generalization of the infectious process, there are functional disorders in the joint area and a general deterioration in the quality of life of the patient. Timely diagnosis and treatment of the infectious process and related disorders can minimize the adverse effects of infection.

Target. The purpose of this review is to analyze modern methods for diagnosing and treating periprosthetic infection resulting from hip replacement.

Materials and methods. The subject literature was searched using the PubMed and Google Sholar databases.

Results. The main methods for diagnosing periprosthetic infection include histological and bacteriological examination of the biopsy specimen, determination of sensitivity to antibiotics, blood, and synovial fluid analysis for the content of leukocytes, IL-6, CRP, PCR diagnostics of infectious agents. Treatment consists of re-intervention and/or antibiotic therapy.

Conclusion. The most optimal method for diagnosing periprosthetic infection is a bacteriological study of biopsy specimens taken intraoperatively. The preferred method of treatment is determined by the severity of the infection, the degree of involvement of tissues adjacent to the prosthesis, the comorbid background, the nature of the infectious agent, and includes repeated revision surgery.

[Planning revision hip arthroplasty : What are the structural requirements?]

The results of many studies and register reports show that the frequency of primary hip arthroplasty per hospital, but also per surgeon, influence the outcome. In the large spectrum of revision hip arthroplasty volume-outcome effects have also partially been proven. It is obvious that with the increasing complexity of revision surgery and comorbidities, higher demands exist concerning collaborating disciplines as well as training and intervention frequency of the surgical team. Further aspects regarding organisation and structure such as the availability of specific revision implants and instruments must be ensured. In order to provide sustainable resources for revision surgery in an arthroplasty centre, organization of education and training for staff members in different disciplines and working levels must be ensured without quality impairment.