Periprosthetic joint infections in modular endoprostheses of the lower extremities: a retrospective observational study in 101 patients

Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities

In recent years, indications for implanting mega-implants were established in managing major bone defects linked to revision arthroplasty due to loosening, periprosthetic fractures, re-implantation following periprosthetic joint infection, non-union following fractures as well as complex intraarticular primary fractures. This study was conducted to discuss and analyze the strategy of diagnosis and management of complications following the use of mega-implants in treating primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. This is a monocentric retrospective study. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis due to periprosthetic or primary fractures of the lower extremity between January 2010 and February 2023 were identified from the authors' hospital information system. We identified 96 patients with equal numbers of fractures (71 periprosthetic fractures and 25 primary fractures). 90 cases out of 96 were investigated in this study. The drop-out rate was 6.25% (six cases). The average follow-up period was 22 months (1 to 8 years) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The diagnosis of complications was provided on the basis of subjective symptoms, clinical signs, radiological findings and laboratory investigations such as C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and the microbiological findings. The indications for implantations of modular mega-implants of the lower extremities were periprosthetic fractures (65 cases/72.22%) and primary fractures (25 cases/27.78%). Pathological fractures due to malignancy were encountered in 23 cases (25.56%), in one case due to primary tumor (1.11%) and 22 cases due to metastatic lesions (24.44%). Two cases (2.22%) presented with primary intraarticular fractures with severe osteoporosis and primary arthrosis. In all cases with malignancy staging was performed. Regarding localization, proximal femur replacement was encountered in 60 cases (66.67%), followed by distal femur replacement (28 cases/31.11%) and total femur replacement (2 cases/2.22%). The overall complication rate was 23.33% (21 complications in 21 patients). The most common complication was dislocation which was encountered in nine cases (10%), all following proximal femoral replacement (9 cases out of 60, making 15% of cases with proximal femoral replacement). The second most common complication was infection (six cases, 6.67%), followed by four aseptic loosenings (4.44%), further intraoperative periprosthetic fracture in one case (1.11%) and a broken implant in one case (1.11%). We noticed no cases with wear and tear of the polyethylene components and no cases of disconnections of the modular components. Mega-endoprostheses enable versatile management options in the treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. The rate of complications such as loosening, implant failure, dislocation and infection are within an acceptable range in this preliminary analysis. However, implantation of mega-endoprostheses must be strictly indicated due the limited salvage options following surgery.

Staged Management of Infection with Adjustable Spacers After Megaprosthesis Implantation in Primary Sarcoma Patients

Background

While periprosthetic joint infection has always been a significant concern for orthopaedic surgeons, the rate of infection is five to ten times higher after tumor prosthesis implantation. With the growing use of mega-implants, the number of these infections has also increased. We aimed to investigate the results of our patients with a primary malignant musculoskeletal tumor, who underwent two-stage revision surgery for an infected mega-prosthesis. We also presented the emerging complicatons and required soft tissue reconstruction procedures.

Methods

The study included 32 primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients who underwent a two-stage revision procedure for infection. After a rigorous bone and soft tissue debridement procedure at the first stage, antibiotic-loaded bone cement was wrapped around a cloverleaf type intramedullary nail and inserted into the forming gap. After a minimum of 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy, depending on patients' clinical signs and serum infection markers, the reimplantation stage was undertaken.

Results

The mean oncologic follow-up period was 28 months (range 5-96 months). During this period, 11 patients died because of non-infection related causes, 12 patients were alive with their disease, whereas 9 patients were totally free of their oncologic condition. The infection was eradicated in all survivors except one patient, where a high-level transfemoral amputation became necessary.

Conclusion

Periprosthetic infection after tumor proshesis implantation in cancer patients can be managed with same principles as conventional arthroplaty procedures, taking care that they are immunocompromised and vulnerable patients and their bone stock loss is significant which makes surgical options more challenging.

High Risk for Persistent Peri-Prosthetic Infection and Amputation in Mega-Prosthesis Reconstruction

A peri-prosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after mega-prosthesis reconstruction of large bone defects. The current study investigates how patients operated with a mega-prosthesis due to sarcoma, metastasis, or trauma, are affected by a deep infection focusing on re-operations, risk for persistent infection, arthrodesis, or subsequent amputation. Time to infection, causative bacterial strains, mode of treatment and length of hospital stay are also reported. A total of 114 patients with 116 prostheses were evaluated, a median of 7.6 years (range 3.8-13.7) after surgery, of which 35 (30%) were re-operated due to a peri-prosthetic infection. Of the infected patients, the prosthesis was still in place in 51%, 37% were amputated, and 9% had an arthrodesis. The infection was persistent in 26% of the infected patients at follow-up. The mean total length of hospital stay was 68 (median 60) days and the mean number of reoperations was 8.9 (median 6.0). The mean length of antibiotic treatment was 340 days (median 183). Coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequent bacterial agents isolated in deep cultures. No MRSA- or ESBL-producing Enterobacterales were found but vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium was isolated in one patient. In summary, there is a high risk for peri-prosthetic infection in mega-prostheses, resulting in persistent infection or amputation relatively often.

Infections of Tumor Prostheses: An Updated Review on Risk Factors, Microbiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment Strategies

Several causes contribute to the high infection rate in tumor prostheses, including extensive tissue dissection and patients' immunosuppression due to the neoplastic disease. Most of these infections develop within the first 2 years following surgery with 70% of them occurring during the first year, while they are often associated with a low pathogen burden. The pathogenesis of infections in tumor prostheses is linked to bacteria developing in biofilms. Approximately half of them are caused by Staphylococcus spp., followed by Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and Enterobacteriaceae spp., while multiple pathogens may be isolated in up to 25% of the cases, with coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) and Enterococccus spp. being the most frequent pair. Although early detection and timely management are essential for complete resolution of these challenging infections, prompt diagnosis is problematic due to the highly varying clinical symptoms and the lack of specific preoperative and intraoperative diagnostic tests. Surgical management with one- or two-stage revision surgery is the mainstay for successful eradication of these infections. The recent advances in laboratory diagnostics and the development of biofilm-resistant prostheses over the past years have been areas of great interest, as research is now focused on prevention strategies. The aim of this study is to review and consolidate the current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, microbiology, and diagnosis of infections of tumor prostheses, and to review the current concepts for their treatment and outcomes.

Long-term changes in serum silver concentrations after extremity reconstruction with silver-coated megaprostheses

Silver-coated megaprostheses are considered to reduce infection rate following reconstruction of bone defects in tumour surgery or revision arthroplasty. However, little is known about systemic silver exposure and possible side effects. The aim of this study was to analyse serum silver concentrations in patients with silver-coated megaprostheses over a prolonged time period. Between 2004 and 2016, 46 patients (52.2% female, mean age at surgery 47.1 ± 24.2 years) received silver-coated megaprostheses for septic (n = 26) or oncological (n = 17; main implant since 2013) indications, or aseptic loosening (n = 3). Blood was drawn from all patients within the first few days following surgery (without silver ion levels) and thereafter every 6 months at the outpatient department (with silver ion levels). Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used to determine silver ion levels. Median follow-up was 47.3 months (IQR: 16.1–78.9). Overall, 29 revision surgeries became necessary in 20 patients, equivalent to a cumulative complication rate of 63.0%. Revisions were most commonly for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs, n = 12) and instability/soft tissue problems (n = 10). Revision-free implant survival was 81.4%, 42.3% and 35.2% at one, 5 and 10 years. Incidence of local argyria was 8.7% (n = 4). Silver ion levels at two or more consecutive time points during follow-up were available for 26 patients. An increment of silver levels within the first months (“run-in”) was observed, followed by an unspecific undulating course. Median initial and latest follow-up (median, 49.5 months) serum silver ion levels were 16.0 ppb (IQR: 9.1–29.1) and 7.4 ppb (IQR: 2.7–14.1), respectively. According to the multivariate mixed linear random-effects model, development of PJI was associated with significantly higher silver ion levels over time (p = 0.002), irrespective of time from surgery (p = 0.274). In the current series, a cumulative complication rate of 63.0% was observed for patients receiving silver-coated megaprostheses for septic of oncological indications. An overall unspecific course of silver ion concentration was present. Development of PJI was significantly associated with increased silver ion levels over time. Yet, no systemic complication associated to high silver levels occurred. It can be concluded that silver-coated implants constitute a safe solution for megaprosthetic reconstruction, but monitoring of silver concentrations is recommended.

The Use of Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Lower-Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

»

As the number of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures continues to rise, megaprostheses have found an emerging role in more complex revision arthroplasty cases that require additional reconstruction, stability, and restoration of function.

»

Megaprosthesis options have evolved: in addition to cemented prostheses, cementless and even hybrid fixation designs optimize longevity. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), distal femoral replacement (DFR), proximal tibial replacement (PTR), and total femoral replacement (TFR) are all limb salvage options in the setting of substantial bone loss, poor bone quality, and soft-tissue compromise.

»

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after PFR, likely due to the loss of soft-tissue integrity, most notably the hip abductor musculature from the greater trochanter. The utilization of dual-mobility constructs, larger femoral heads, elevated acetabular liners, and constrained acetabular liners may reduce the risk of instability and improve overall hip function.

»

Patients with megaprostheses may be more prone to periprosthetic joint infection and surgical site infection given multiple variables, such as the lengthy nature of the surgical procedure, prolonged wound exposure, extensive soft-tissue dissection and resection, poor soft-tissue coverage, and poorer host status.

»

Despite advances in technology, complication and revision rates remain high after megaprosthesis reconstruction. Therefore, thorough attention to patient-specific factors must be considered for appropriate use of these constructs.

[Mega-prostheses in revision knee arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

Due to a predicted increase in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision TKA will gain importance over the following years. Because the average age of patients receiving a TKA is decreasing the possible need for multiple revisions might increase as well. Despite efforts to minimize bone and soft tissue damage, the resulting bone and soft-tissue loss increases with each revision and will make the use of megaprostheses indispensable in the future.

COMPLICATIONS

The implantation of a mega-prosthesis must be carefully considered and planned, since mega-prostheses in particular are associated with an increased risk of infection and loosening. Mechanical complications, patient-specific problems and periprosthetic infections can be either the cause for or the result of revision surgery of a mega-prosthesis. In the case of a complication, only a salvage procedure, namely an arthrodesis, amputation or-if necessary-the installation of a permanent fistula is commonly recommended.

Risk Factors Related to Poor Outcomes in the Treatment of Non-conventional Periprosthetic Infection

Objectives  To identify the main risk factors related to poor outcomes after the treatment for periprosthetic infection.

Materials and Methods  Medical records from 109 patients who underwent non-conventional endoprosthesis surgeries (primary and revision procedures) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018, were retrospectively evaluated. In total, 15 patients diagnosed with periprosthetic infection were eligible to participate in the study. Variables including gender, age at diagnosis, affected bone, surgery duration, white blood cell (WBC) count before endoprosthesis placement, urinary tract infection during the first postoperative year, and time elapsed from endoprosthesis placement to infection diagnosis were related to outcomes using the Fisher exact test (for the bicategorical variables) or analysis of variance (ANOVA, for the tricategorical variables). The mean times from diagnosis to final outcome were compared using the Student t -test.

Results  These risk factors did not show a statistically significant correlation with the outcomes. The data revealed a trend towards a difference between the mean time for the onset of infection and the final outcome. Due to the limited sample, we believe that studies with larger cohorts can prove this trend.

Conclusion  We identified that the time from endoprosthesis placement to the onset of the symptoms of infection tends to be related to the outcome and evolution of the patient evolution during the treatment for periprosthetic infection. Although apparently correlated, other associated factors were not statistically linked to poor treatment outcomes.

The risk for complications and reoperations with the use of mega prostheses in bone reconstructions

Background

Despite a relatively high risk for complications and reoperations, mega prostheses are considered a useful method for reconstruction of bone defects after tumour resections. The total number of reoperations has not previously been described, and little is known about the complication rate of mega prostheses used for other indications than primary bone tumours.

Questions/purposes

The current retrospective observational study aimed to describe the patient population treated with mega prostheses at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden, during 14 consecutive years, reports the complications leading to reoperation and the number and type of reoperations for different kinds of complications, and reports on implant survival.

Methods

All patients treated with a mega prosthesis, regardless of surgical indication and anatomical location, at Sahlgrenska University Hospital during the period 2006–2019 were identified. The medical records for all patients were reviewed. Data regarding age, sex, diagnosis, site of disease, bone resection length, chemotherapeutical treatment and postoperative complications including infections and oncological outcome, were collected and evaluated.

Results

One hundred and fourteen patients treated with 116 mega prostheses were included in the study. The predominant indication for primary surgery with a mega prosthesis was sarcoma of either bone or soft tissue (53.5% of the patients). In total 51 prostheses (44%) did not require any reoperation after the primary surgery. The most common reason for reoperation was infection (22%) followed by soft tissue failure (13%). The risk for prosthetic infection was significantly higher in the group of patients operated due to sarcoma compared with all other indications for surgery regardless of surgical site (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

The study reveals a total reoperation rate of 56% after reconstructive surgery using mega prostheses. Despite the high reoperation rates, at the end of the study period, 83% of the patients had still a functioning prosthesis. Therefore, the use of mega prostheses can be considered a reliable method for reconstruction of large bone defects in selected patients.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Megaendoprostheses in the management of malignant tumors of the lower extremities-risk factors for revision surgery

Abstract

Background

Improved oncological and surgical measures now enable curative treatment of malignant lower extremity tumors in majority of cases. Complication rates associated with surgical resection of lower extremity tumors and replacement with megaendoprostheses are high. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors that predispose to revision surgery following the use of megaimplants in curative treatment of malignant tumors of the lower extremities.

Methods

this retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis for tumors or metastatic lesions of the lower extremities between January 2010 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics and information on adjuvant treatment, hospitalization time, comorbidities, mobility, complications, and revision surgery were considered. Primary outcomes were revision surgery and reasons for revision. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and the duration of hospitalization.

Results

Fifty-four patients (48% female, age 63 years, SD 15) were available for final analysis. Surgeries were performed at hip level in 37 patients (68.5%) and at knee level in 17 patients (31.5%). Revision for wound-related causes was performed in 12 cases (22.2%), with microbiological proof of infection in 8 cases (14.8%). Revision for hip joint instability was carried out in 4 cases (7.4%) and for disconnection between components of the megaimplant in 2 cases (3.7%). Those patients requiring a wound-related revision had undergone a longer primary surgical intervention than those who required an implant-related revision (276 vs 134 min, p = .002). Wound drains after the primary implantation remained longer in situ in patients who later required revision surgery for wound-related complications (5 vs 3 days, p = .020). An ASA > 3 was associated with an increased likelihood for in-hospital complications in general (p = .041), and in-hospital death in particular (p = .012).

Conclusions

The management of malignant tumors of the lower extremities with megaendoprostheses is associated with a high rate of wound-related complications. Swift surgical performance and early postoperative removal of wound drains minimize the risk of complications in general and the necessity of revision surgery in particular. Patients with more comorbidities were more likely to suffer in-hospital complications.

Clinical Outcome After Replacement of Distal Femur/Proximal Tibia in a Heterogeneous Patient Cohort: Function Following Tumour, Trauma, and Loosening

BACKGROUND

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements as limb-salvage procedures with good outcome parameters for patients with tumours have been broadly described. However, the overall midterm outcome in a mixed, heterogeneous patient collective is still unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 59 consecutive patients (33 for primary and 26 for revision surgery) between 1998 and 2017. Indication for implantation was tumour (n=16), periprosthetic fracture (n=14), traumatic fracture (n=14), infection (n=10), aseptic loosening (n=3), and pathological fracture (n=2). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. Clinical functions were evaluated by Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Knee Society Score. Knee extension and flexion force were measured.

RESULTS

The overall survival rate of arthroplasties was 59% (n=35). Major complications were observed in 36 (61%) patients. During the follow-up period, 14 (24%) patients died. We recorded periprosthetic joint infection in 21 (36%) patients, recurrence of tumour in two (3%), and aseptic implant failure in three (5%). The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 66±33, and the mean Knee Society Score was 49±30. The mean extension force on the operated side was significantly reduced at 60° and 180° compared to the healthy side (p=0.0151 and p=0.0411, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements showed limited clinical function in a heterogeneous patient collective. Indication for implantation should be considered carefully.

Knee arthrodesis as last resort for persistent knee joint infections : Comparison of extramedullary and intramedullary treatment

Background

Knee joint arthrodesis is an established treatment for periprosthetic infections (PPI) providing stability and pain relief. In this study the outcome after arthrodesis of the knee joint for persistent infections was compared and evaluated depending on the surgical procedure (intramedullary vs. extramedullary).

Material and methods

In a retrospective case analysis, all patients who underwent knee joint arthrodesis between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016 were identified and divided into two groups: IMA and EMA. All patients were examined clinically and radiologically and the patient files were evaluated. In addition, the FIM score, the LEFS, the WHOQOL-BREF and NRS were evaluated.

Results

The median LEFS score for the IMA group was 26 points and in the EMA group 2 points (p = 0.03). The IMA patients showed a median pain scale at rest of 0 and during exercise of 2. The EMA group recorded a pain scale of 3 at rest and 5 during exercise (p = 0.28 at rest; p = 0.43 during exercise). In the IMA group the median postsurgical leg length difference was −2.0 cm and −2.5 cm in the EMA group (p = 0.31). At the end of the follow-up examinations, the FIM score of patients in the IMA group was 74.5 points and 22 points in the EMA group (p = 0.07).

Conclusion

The study showed that no arthrodesis procedure is obviously superior with respect to the postoperative outcome. The IMA combines advantages especially in the early phase after surgery in terms of function as well as patient comfort and is therefore currently the procedure of choice. The attending physician should be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of the various procedures in order to be able to make an individual decision and thus maximize the chance of treatment success.

Surgical drainage after limb salvage surgery and endoprosthetic reconstruction: is 30 mL/day critical?

Background

Periprosthetic infection is a major cause of failure after segmental endoprosthetic reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to determine whether certain aspects of drain output affect infection risk, particularly the 30 mL/day criterion for removal.

Methods

Two hundred and ninety-five patients underwent segmental bone resection and lower limb endoprosthetic reconstruction at one institution. Data on surgical drain management and occurrence of infection were obtained from a retrospective review of patients’ charts and radiographs. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with infection.

Results

Thirty-one of 295 patients (10.5%) developed infection at a median time of 13 months (range 1–108 months). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism and was responsible for the majority of cases developing within 1 year of surgery. Mean output at the time of drain removal was 72 mL/day. Ten of 88 patients (11.3%) with ≤ 30 mL/day drainage and 21 of 207 patients (10.1%) with > 30 mL/day drainage developed infection (p = 0.84). In multivariate analysis, independent predictive factors for infection included sarcoma diagnosis (HR 4.13, 95% CI 1.4–12.2, p = 0.01) and preoperative chemotherapy (HR 3.29, 95% CI 1.1–9.6, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Waiting until drain output is < 30 mL/day before drain removal is not associated with decreased risk of infection for segmental endoprostheses of the lower limb after tumor resection. Sarcoma diagnosis and preoperative chemotherapy were independent predictors of infection.

Management of Modular Mega-Implant Infection of the Lower Extremity

INTRODUCTION

Revision arthroplasty involving mega-implants is associated with a high complication rate. In particular, infection is a serious complication of revision arthroplasty of hip and knee joints and has been reported to have an average rate of 18%, and for mega-implants, the range is from 3 to 36%. This study was designed to analyze the strategy of treatment of infection of mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities in our patient cohort, particularly the management of chronic infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study that focused on the results of the treatment of periprosthetic infections of mega-implants of the lower extremities. We identified 26 cases with periprosthetic infections out of 212 patients with 220 modular mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities who were treated in our department between September 2013 and September 2019. As a reinfection or recurrence, we defined clinical and microbiological recurrences of local periprosthetic joint infections after an antibiotic-free period.

RESULTS

In this study, 200 cases out of 220 were investigated. The average follow-up period was approximately 18 months (6 months to 6 years). Endoprosthesis infections after implantation of mega-implants occurred in 26 cases (13%). This group comprised 2 early infections (within the first 4 weeks) and 24 chronic infections (between 10 weeks and 6 years after implantation). Nineteen cases out of the identified 26 cases with infection (73.1%) belong to the group of patients who were operated on due to major bone loss following explantation of endoprosthetic components due to previous periprosthetic joint infection. The remaining seven cases with infection comprised four cases following management of periprosthetic fracture, two cases following treatment of aseptic loosening, and one case following tumor resection. All infections were treated surgically. In all cases, the duration of continuous antibiotic treatment did not exceed 6 weeks. Both cases with early infection were treated by exchanging polyethylene inlays and performing debridement with lavage (two cases). In two (7.7%) cases with chronic infection, one-stage surgery was performed. In all remaining cases with chronic infection (22 cases; 84.6%), explantation of all components and temporary implantation of cement spacers were carried out prior to reimplantation.

CONCLUSION

There is still no gold standard therapeutic regimen for the management of periprosthetic infection of mega-implants, though radical surgical debridement and lavage accompanied by systemic antibiotic therapy are the most important therapeutic tools in all cases of periprosthetic infections, regardless of the time of onset. Further studies are needed to standardize management strategies of such infections. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for compromises to be made based on the particular condition of the individual.

[Periprosthetic joint infections : Latest developments, strategies and treatment algorithms]

BACKGROUND

Due to their multidimensional consequences, periprosthetic joint infections are a serious complication in arthroplasty. There are disagreements in the literature regarding their classification. At the same time, a consequence for the practical procedure cannot always be derived.

THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES

In addition to debridement with antibiotics and implant retention, there are options for a one or two-stage change in the therapeutic procedure. Although the preservation of implants is only possible in the case of acute infections with a short duration of symptoms, prosthesis changes are indicated with a longer symptom duration. For both procedures, there are interinstitutional deviating indication criteria, weighing pros and cons. Both have specific problems, such as, in particular, the duration of the antibiotics course, the question of anchoring the prosthesis and, in the case of a two-stage procedure, the shape of the spacer.

Management of infected extremity endoprostheses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstructions have become increasingly common in the setting of significant bone loss. Indications include revision arthroplasty, trauma, and reconstruction in the setting of primary malignancies or bony metastases. Although the use of endoprostheses has several advantages, they carry a high risk of infection. The purpose of this review is to determine the success rates of surgical management of infected endoprostheses.

METHODS

The authors searched databases for relevant studies and screened in duplicate. Data extracted included overall infection rate, timing of infection, follow-up, isolated pathogen and operative treatment strategy, and subsequent failure rate. The overall quality of the evidence with the Methodological Index for non-randomized studies criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies and 647 patients met the inclusion criteria. 400 patients had operative management and reported outcomes. Failure rates of patients undergoing debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) were 55.1%. Failure rates of patients who underwent one-stage revision were 45.5%. Failure rates of patients undergoing two-stage revision were 27.3%. Failure occurred at 31.4 months (range, 0-228) postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of periprosthetic joint infection remain high in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Although DAIR procedures were found to have a low success rate, they remain a reasonable option in acute infections given the morbidity of staged revisions. There is a lack of comparative data in the current literature and the heterogeneity and low level of evidence does not allow for between group comparisons of results.

18F-FDG PET for Diagnosing Infections in Prosthetic Joints

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication, associated with substantial morbidity and high costs. PJI can occur in the early postoperative period but also many years after joint replacement. Timely and accurate diagnosis is important for treatment planning. Diagnosis of PJI can be a challenge, especially for chronic and low-grade infections. The diagnostic performance of fludeoxyglucose F 18 (¹⁸F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting PJI seems sufficiently high for routine clinical application and has additional value to conventional tests. Further research is needed to determine the exact place of ¹⁸F-FDG PET in the diagnostic work-up of suspected PJI.

A retrospective study of antibacterial iodine-coated implants for postoperative infection

Postoperative infection is one of the most serious complications in orthopedic surgery. We have developed and use iodine-coated implants to prevent and treat postoperative infection in compromised hosts. This study evaluated outcomes using iodine-coated implants for postoperative infections.We treated 72 postoperative infected patients using iodine-coated implants. Of these, 38 were males and 34 were females, with a mean age of 59.3 years. The mean follow-up period was 5.6 years. The patients included 23 with an infection following total knee arthroplasty, 20 following total hip arthroplasty, 11 following osteosynthesis, 11 following spine surgery, 6 following tumor excision, and 1 following osteotomy. Of these, 37 underwent single-stage surgery and 35 underwent staged revision surgery. We performed staged surgery in any case with active infection. The survival of iodine-coated implants was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. White blood cell (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured pre- and postoperatively. To evaluate the systemic effects of iodine, serum thyroid hormone levels were examined.Five patients underwent re-revision surgery. In 3 patients, periprosthetic infection recurred at an average of 18 months after surgery. The reinfection rate was 4.2%. These patients recovered following reimplantation of iodine-coated prostheses. No patients required amputation. The survival rate of iodine-coated implants was 91%. There were no signs of infection at the latest follow-up. The median WBC level was nearly in the normal range, and CRP levels returned to normal within 4 weeks after surgery. No abnormalities of thyroid gland function were detected.Iodine-coated titanium implants can be very effective in the treatment of postoperative infections. An iodine coating can be safely applied to infected regions.

Surface Phenomena Enhancing the Antibacterial and Osteogenic Ability of Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite, Activated by Multiple-Ion Doping

The present work describes a novel nanocrystalline, multidoped hydroxyapatite featuring excellent eukaryotic versus prokaryotic cell selectivity, attested by excellent osteoinductive character and evaluated with human stem cells, and anti-infective ability, tested against different pathogens. Physicochemical analysis and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)/scanning STEM observations highlighted that such enhanced biological features are related to the lower crystallinity level and increased surface charge of hydroxyapatite, both induced by multiple-ion doping. Specifically, the lattice substitution of Ca²⁺ with Zn²⁺ promotes the segregation of Ca²⁺ and doping Mg²⁺ cations to a less-ordered surface layer, thus promoting dynamic ion absorption/release acting as bioactive signals for cells and exerting an antiproliferative effect on all tested pathogens. These findings open the design of new biodevices, combining regenerative ability and effective microbial inhibition without using any antibiotic drugs. This is extremely important to circumvent bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which is today considered as one of the biggest threats to global health.

High complication and revision rates after total femoral replacement: a retrospective single center analysis of indication, function, and complication

INTRODUCTION

Total femoral replacement (TFR) is a limb salvage procedure performed for large bony defects. However, it is often associated with major complications and reduced function. Data on limb preservation rates and functional outcomes after TFR are limited. The primary objective of this study is to assess indications, functional outcomes, and complications after TFR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients after TFR between 2006 and 2016. All patients received a modular mega endoprosthesis (MUTARS^®). Patients were grouped according to their initial indication for TFR: (1) fracture, (2) tumor, or (3) infection. We evaluated (i) patient survival, (ii) postoperative function with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS), knee strength, range of motion, and (iii) complications.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2016, TFR was performed in 22 patients with a mean age of 64 +/-17 years. Indications for TFR were tumor (n = 6), infection (n = 8) and fracture (n = 8). The mean follow-up (f/up) was 18 months. At final follow-up, mean MSTS was 24%. Mean knee flexion strength was reduced 63% compared to the contralateral leg (p = 0.004). At time of final f/up, 5 patients (22%) died, 5 (22%) underwent secondary hip exarticulation, and 12 (54%) suffered a major complication. At f/up, 11 patients had infections. Of these 11 patients, 5 died, 4 were treated with debridement, and 5 were treated with hip exarticulation. Fifteen patients survived with preserved limbs at f/up.

CONCLUSION

TFR is a salvage procedure with limited functional outcome and high complication rates. Nevertheless, the majority of our cohort could be treated successfully with limb salvage.

Silver-coated modular Megaendoprostheses in salvage revision arthroplasty after periimplant infection with extensive bone loss - a pilot study of 34 patients

Background

Hip and knee replacements in patients with bone defects after infection correlates with high rates of reinfection. In this vulnerable patient population, the prevention of reinfection is to be considered superordinate to the functionality and defect bridging. The use of silver coating of aseptic implants as an infection prophylaxis is already proven; however, the significance of these coatings in septic reimplantation of large implants is still not sufficiently investigated.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis, 34 patients who have been treated with a modular mega-endoprosthesis after a cured bone infection of the lower limb (femur or tibia) have been evaluated. One group with 14 patients (NSCG: non silver- coated group) was supplied with the non silver- coated implants: MML München- Lübeck™ modular endoprosthesis system (AQ Implants, Ahrensburg, Germany) or MUTARS® Modular Universal Tumor And Revision System (Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany). The other group with 20 patients (SCG: silver- coated group) was supplied with the silver- coated system of MUTARS®. In addition to the clinical findings and the patients’ histories, specifically the reinfection rates, the patients’ mobility was assessed using the New Mobility Score (NMS, by Parker and Palmer).

Results

The median follow-up period was 72 months, ranging from 6 to 267 months. The dropout rate was 5.8%. The reinfection rate after healed reinfection in SCG was 40% (8/20), in NSCG 57% (8/14), p = 0.34; α =0.05. The time for reinfection was, on average, 14 months (1–72 months) in SCG and 8 months (1–48 months) in the NSCG (p = 0.61; α =0.05). The two groups showed no differences in the NMS.

Conclusion

With this retrospective analysis, it can be determined that the rate of reinfection of modular mega-endoprostheses on the hip and knee joint after healed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be reduced by the use of silver coated implants. The time until reinfection can also be delayed by utilizing silver coated implants. Due to the low number of cases of this highly specific patient population, no statistical significance could be determined. A positive effect, however, can be assumed through the use of silver coatings in mega-endoprostheses after an infectious situation.

Paraprosthetic Complications After Endoprosthesis Replacement of Pelvis Joint with Implants

PURPOSE

The purpose of the paper is shaping of ideas about possible ways of decreasing complications of the analyzed types of operations and identification of opportunities of the impact on the socio-economic environment among the Afro-American population of USA. The paper demonstrates that the issue of coxofemoral prosthesis is not only a purely medical but also a social problem. In particular, availability of timely aid, as well as insurance in the form of surgery, refer to relevance of the range of problems.

METHODOLOGY

The experimental method was used in the study. Patients were implanted different types of endoprostheses. 90 patients were implanted customized endoprostheses, 27 patients were implanted foreign module endoprostheses. The research subject is prediction of complications after endoprosthesis replacement surgeries depending on methods, types and forms.

RESULTS

As a result, we can see that available health insurance is more acceptable understanding of the need for endoprosthesis replacement. Post-operative care issues fall into the range of social policy problems. A comparative aspect of a country with general insurance and differentiated coverage among the Afro-America population appears innovative.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the current situation it can be concluded that surgery is the last stage for already established support system of the population. For this reason, it's worth mentioning that state bodies of the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on the health care of the Afro-American population.