Clinical outcomes of two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty in infected cases with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers produced using a handmade silicone mold

Clinical outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty using a spiked tibial cement spacer in infected total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

A tibial cement spacer (TCS) with spikes offers better initial stability than a conventional TCS and reduces spacer-related problems in two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) for infection. We compared the clinical outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infected TKA using spiked TCS with that of conventional TCS.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 29 patients who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty using an articulating cement spacer and who could be followed up for at least one year. Group S comprised 14 patients using spiked TCS, whereas Group C comprised 15 patients using conventional TCS. Demographic data, the interval from first to second stage revision, motion arc, numerical rating scale (NRS), Knee Society (KS) score, serum levels of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), and frequency of repeating the first-stage and infection recurrence after R-TKA between the groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the female ratio and mean age between both groups. The mean interval between the first and second stage revision was significantly shorter in Group S than in Group C. The mean motion arc was significantly larger in Group S than in Group C. The mean NRS was significantly lower in Group S than in Group C. The mean KS score in Group S was significantly higher than that in Group C. Serum ESR and CRP levels did not differ between the groups. The frequency of repeating the first stage was lower in Group S than in Group C. However, the recurrence rate after R-TKA was higher in Group S than in Group C.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional TCS, spiked TCS shortened the period until R-TKA and improved pain and function levels. However, no significant difference existed in the rate of infection recurrence after R-TKA.

Aseptic survival of the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection was acceptable when using an autoclaved femoral component and a new polyethylene insert

PURPOSE

To investigate the aseptic survival of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Eighty-eight cases of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI without reinfection were retrospectively analysed. The autoclaved femoral component and new polyethylene insert (PE) were implanted using antibiotic mixed cement. The explanted tibial component was not reinserted. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and range of motion were clinically evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up (the last time for the implant in situ). Radiographically, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and component positions were measured preoperatively, postoperatively (1 month after the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty), and at the last follow-up. The survival rate was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, in which failure was defined as reoperation due to aseptic failure. Mean period to failure and failure site were analysed. Factors affecting survival were investigated in terms of demographics and inappropriateness of the postoperative HKA (HKA > 0 ± 3°) and component positions (α angle > 95 ± 3°, β angle > 90 ± 3°, γ angle > 3 ± 3°, and δ angle > 87 ± 3°).

RESULTS

The spacer in-situ time was 3.7 years (0.2-6.4). The clinical results improved hip-knee-ankle significantly at the last follow-up. Radiographically, the average HKA was valgus 0.1° postoperatively. The average α, β, γ, and δ angles of the postoperative component positions were 95.9°, 90.4°, 3.8°, and 86.7°, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year postoperative survival rates were 90.9%, 86.4%, and 80.6%, respectively. The mean period to failure was 2.0 years (0.2-5.3). There were 18 cases of aseptic loosening (20.8%), occurring on both the femur and tibial sides in 1 knee, and only on the tibial side in 17 knees. Inappropriate coronal position of the PE (β angle > 90 ± 3°) was a significant factor affecting survival (odds ratio = 5.491; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The aseptic survival of the 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty was acceptable when using an autoclaved femoral component and new PE. The appropriate coronal position of the PE helps ensure favourable survival of 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection remains a significant challenge for arthroplasty surgeons globally. Over the last few decades, there has been much advancement in terms of treatment and diagnosis, however, the fight rages on. As management of periprosthetic joint infections continues to evolve, it is critical to reflect back on current debridement practices to establish common ground as well as identify areas for future research and improvement. BODY: In order to understand the debridement techniques of periprosthetic joint infections, one must also understand how to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection. Multiple definitions have been elucidated over the years with no single consensus established but rather sets of criteria. Once a diagnosis has been established the decision of debridement method becomes whether to proceed with single vs two-stage revision based on the probability of infection as well as individual patient factors. After much study, two-stage revision has emerged as the gold standard in the management of periprosthetic infections but single-stage remains prominent with further and further research.

CONCLUSION

Despite decades of data, there is no single treatment algorithm for periprosthetic joint infections and subsequent debridement technique. Our review touches on the goals of debridement while providing a perspective as to diagnosis and the particulars of how intraoperative factors such as intraarticular irrigation can play pivotal roles in infection eradication. By providing a perspective on current debridement practices, we hope to encourage future study and debate on how to address periprosthetic joint infections best.

Are Static Spacers Superior to Articulated Spacers in the Staged Treatment of Infected Primary Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In the treatment of knee periprosthetic joint infection with a two-stage protocol, static spacers allow for the local delivery of high doses of antibiotics and help to preserve soft tissue tension. Articulated spacers were introduced to better preserve flexion after the reimplantation. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive data collection of the results of these different spacers. An in-depth search on the main clinical databases was performed concerning the studies reporting data on the topic. A total of 87 studies and 4250 spacers were included. No significant differences were found both in pooling data analysis and meta-analysis of comparative studies about infection recurrences, complications, and clinical scores. Mean active knee flexion at last follow-up after total knee reimplantation was found to be significantly higher using articulated spacers (91.6° ± 7° for static spacers vs. 100.3° ± 9.9° for articulated spacers; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis also recognized this strong significant difference (p < 0.001). This review has confirmed that articulated spacers do not appear to be inferior to static spacers regarding all clinical outcomes, while they are superior in terms of active flexion. However, the low quality of the studies and the risk for selection bias with complex patients preferentially treated with static spacers need to be accounted for.

Worse outcome of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in acute hematogenous infections than in postsurgical infections after total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study

Background

We sought to determine (1) the success rate of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee in patients with acute postsurgical infection and in those with acute hematogenous infection via a multicenter study, (2) the factors related to the failure of DAIR for overall acute PJI and acute hematogenous PJI via subgroup analysis, and (3) whether the PJI recurrence patterns differed between the two groups over time after DAIR.

Methods

This retrospective multicenter study included 101 acute knee PJI. Acute postsurgical PJI was defined as PJI diagnosed < 3 months following initial knee arthroplasty surgery. DAIR was performed for 34 cases of acute postsurgical PJIs (postsurgical group) and 67 cases of acute hematogenous PJIs (hematogenous group). The success rates between groups were compared, and factors related to DAIR failure were analyzed.

Results

The overall success rate of DAIR was 77%. The success rate tended to be higher in the postsurgical group than in the hematogenous group (p = 0.060). However, there was no significant factor related to DAIR failure in the subgroup analysis of acute hematogenous PJIs. In the postsurgical group, the recurrence of PJI occurred until 3 months, whereas in the hematogenous group, recurrence occurred for up to 2 years.

Conclusions

The failure rate tended to be higher in the acute hematogenous PJI group than in the acute postsurgical PJI group. Since acute hematogenous infections may recur for a longer period than postsurgical infections, careful follow-up is required after DAIR.

Intra-articular Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells After High Tibial Osteotomy in Osteoarthritic Knee: Two-Year Follow-up of Randomized Control Trial

Intra-articular injection of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell (ADMSC) after medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) would be a promising disease-modifying treatment by correcting biomechanical and biochemical environment for arthritic knee with varus malalignment. However, there is a paucity of clinical evidence of the treatment. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was aimed to assess regeneration of cartilage defect, functional improvement, and safety of intra-articular injection of ADMSCs after MOWHTO compared with MOWHTO alone for osteoarthritic knee with varus malalignment. This RCT allocated 26 patients into the MOWHTO with ADMSC-injection group (n = 13) and control (MOWHTO-alone) group (n = 13). The primary outcome was the serial changes of cartilage defect on periodic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation using valid measurements until postoperative 24 months. Secondary outcomes were the 2-stage arthroscopic evaluation for macroscopic cartilage status and the postoperative functional improvements of patient-reported outcome measures until the latest follow-up. Furthermore, safety profiles after the treatment were evaluated. Cartilage regeneration on serial MRIs showed significantly better in the ADMSC group than in the control group. The arthroscopic assessment revealed that total cartilage regeneration was significantly better in the ADMSC group. Although it was not significant, functional improvements after the treatment showed a tendency to be greater in the ADMSC group than in the control group from 18 months after the treatment. No treatment-related adverse events, serious adverse events, and postoperative complications occurred in all cases. Concomitant intra-articular injection of ADMSCs with MOWHTO had advantages over MOWHTO alone in terms of cartilage regeneration with safety at 2-year follow-up, suggesting potential disease-modifying treatment for knee OA with varus malalignment.