Single stage revision: regaining momentum

Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection

INTRODUCTION

Although two-stage exchange has been the standard of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, single-stage exchange is emerging as an option in select patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage exchange using strict surgical indications.

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 196 patients with diagnosed PJI undergoing revision total knee and hip arthroplasty from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had PJI history, plastic surgery coverage, or extensive bone loss requiring endoprosthesis. We compared the number of patients PJI-free at 1-year follow-up using MusculoSkeletal Infection Society criteria and patients requiring re-revision between the single-stage and two-stage groups.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 61 knee patients (48.4%), 22 underwent single-stage (36%) and 39 underwent two-stage (63.9%). Of 65 hip patients (51.6%), 38 underwent single-stage (58.5%) and 27 underwent two-stage (41.5%). At a mean follow-up of 1.95 ± 0.88 years, a higher rate of knee patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (77.3% versus 69.2%, P = 0.501), however with comparable septic failure rates (18.1% single-stage versus 17.9% two-stage; P = 0.982). At a mean follow-up of 1.81 ± 0.9 years, a higher rate of hip patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (94.7% versus 81.5%, P = 0.089), and more patients had septic failures in the two-stage group (18.5% versus 5.3%; P = 0.089). No differences were observed in the microorganism profile. More total complications (P = 0.021) and mortalities were found in the single-stage knee cohort than in the two-stage cohort (22.7% versus 2.6%; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage arthroplasty is a viable alternative to standard two-stage exchange in patients with PJI without a history of infection and with no bone or soft-tissue compromise. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Do one-stage indications predict success following two-stage arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection?

Introduction: The 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) proposed criteria for one-stage exchange arthroplasty in treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to determine what proportion of PJI patients met the 2018 ICM criteria and how this affected infection-free survivorship for patients. Methods: All chronic PJI patients treated with two-stage exchange within our institution between 2017-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included cases met 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI and had a 2-year minimum follow-up. Treatment success was defined as Tier 1A in the 2019 MSIS working group definition. ICM one-stage criteria included non-immunocompromised host, absence of sepsis, adequate soft tissue for closure, known preoperative pathogen, and susceptibility. Immunocompromised host was analyzed as two separate definitions. Kaplan-Meier survivorship, Cox regression, and univariate analyses were performed. Results: A total of 293 chronic PJI patients were included. Overall, treatment failure occurred in 64 / 293 (21.8 %) patients. Only 13 % (n = 37 ) met ICM criteria definition no. 1 for one-stage exchange; 12 % (n = 33 ) met definition no. 2. In both definitions, infection-free survivorship at 2 years did not differ between patients who met and did not meet criteria (p > 0.05 ). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses demonstrated that the only variable predicting treatment failure was knee joint involvement (p = 0.01 ). Conclusions: We found that a very limited number of chronic PJI patients were suitable for a one-stage exchange. Furthermore, the supposition that healthier hosts with known pathogens (the basis of the ICM criteria) yield better PJI treatment outcomes was not observed. These results justify the ongoing multicenter randomized control trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage treatment for chronic PJI.

Failed 2-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is most frequently treated with 2-stage revision in conjunction with antibiotic treatment. The aims of this study were 1) to investigate the characteristics of patients who have recurrent infection following 2-stage revision for PJI and 2) to identify risk factors associated with treatment failure.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review of 90 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who underwent 2-stage revision for treatment of PJI from March 1, 2003 to July 31, 2019, and had recurrent PJI was conducted. The minimum follow-up was 12 months (median follow up of 2.4 years). Microorganisms, subsequent revision, PJI control status, and final joint status were collected. The infection-free survival after initial 2-stage revision was plotted utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Mean survival time to reinfection was 21.3 months (range, 0.3 to 160.5). There were 14 recurrent infections that were acute PJIs treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), while 76 were chronic and treated with repeat 2-stage revision. The most common pathogen identified for both index and recurrent PJI was coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Pathogen persistence was observed in 14 (22.2%) of recurrent PJIs. In total, 61 (67.8%) patients possessed a prosthetic reimplantation at their most recent follow-up, and 29 (35.6%) patients required intervention following repeat 2-stage.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 31.1% of the patients obtained infection control after treatment of a failed 2-stage revision due to PJI. The high rate of pathogen persistence and the relatively low survival time to recurrence suggests a need to more closely monitor PJIs cases within 2 years.

Successful eradication rate following one-stage septic knee and hip exchange in selected pre-operative culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections

PURPOSE

The main requirement for performing the one-stage septic exchange is the pre-operative identification of the pathogen and its susceptibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success rate with special focus on reinfection in a cohort of patients who underwent one-stage septic knee or hip revision for pre-operative culture-negative PJI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 640 patients treated by one-stage revision for chronic knee or hip PJI between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Only cases with pre-operative culture-negative PJI, with culture-negative synovial aspirations and one negative open biopsy, were analyzed. We evaluated the septic and aseptic complication and the rate of complication-free survival defined as the time from the date of first operation and the date of complication events.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients fulfilled the inclusion and were enrolled. The mean age of the group was 73.2 ± 9.8 years, with a median ASA score of 3 (range 3-4). After mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.6 years, 86.4% (19 out of 22) of patients reported no complications. Two patients (9.1%) after one-stage hip required revision arthroplasty due to septic failure, while one patient (4.5%) with one-stage knee had revision for femoral component aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that the absence of pre-operative pathogen detection may not be contraindication to the one-stage revision in selected patients. The one-stage exchange might be considered in patients with pre-operative negative cultures in presence of ASA > 3 and multiple comorbidities that are not able to tolerate multiple surgeries.

Periprosthetic knee infection: treatment options

Infection is one of the most catastrophic complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and represents the second most common cause of TKA failure. Treatment of a patient with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) could require often costly and prolonged hospital stays, weeks or months of antibiotic therapy, and multiple surgical procedures. The best management is still highly debating, whereas many treatment options are available. These include suppressive antibiotics, arthroscopic irrigation and debridement, open debridement with insert exchange, single-stage reimplantation and two-stage reimplantation. The choice of the treatment depends on many variables, including integrity of implant, timing of the infection, host factors (age, health, immunologic status), virulence of the infecting organism and wishes of the patient. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive understaning of the different options for knee PJIs.

Experiences during Switching from Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection

The objective of this study was to evaluate our preliminary results after changing our surgical strategy from 2-stage revision arthroplasty to 1-stage revision arthroplasty for patients with chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection. We conducted a prospective study of knee arthroplasty patients that had been diagnosed with chronic infection and treated using a 1-stage revision regardless of the traditional criteria applied for indication thereof. We evaluated two main variables: infection control and economic costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined by using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated as average costs in USD, as described by Srivastava (2019), for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions. Eighteen patients were included in the study, and infection was controlled in 17 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital from these 18 patients amounted to USD 291,152. This clinical success has led to major changes in how our hospital approaches the treatment of chronically infected knee replacements, in addition to substantial economic advantages for the hospital.

A trilogy antimicrobial strategy for multiple infections of orthopedic implants throughout their life cycle

Bacteria-associated infection represents one of the major threats for orthopedic implants failure during their life cycles. However, ordinary antimicrobial treatments usually failed to combat multiple waves of infections during arthroplasty and prosthesis revisions etc. As these incidents could easily introduce new microbial pathogens in/onto the implants. Herein, we demonstrate that an antimicrobial trilogy strategy incorporating a sophisticated multilayered coating system leveraging multiple ion exchange mechanisms and fine nanotopography tuning, could effectively eradicate bacterial infection at various stages of implantation. Early stage bacteriostatic effect was realized via nano-topological structure of top mineral coating. Antibacterial effect at intermediate stage was mediated by sustained release of zinc ions from doped CaP coating. Strong antibacterial potency was validated at 4 weeks post implantation via an implanted model in vivo. Finally, the underlying zinc titanate fiber network enabled a long-term contact and release effect of residual zinc, which maintained a strong antibacterial ability against both Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli even after the removal of top layer coating. Moreover, sustained release of Sr2+ and Zn2+ during CaP coating degradation substantially promoted implant osseointegration even under an infectious environment by showing more peri-implant new bone formation and substantially improved bone-implant bonding strength.

Management of peri-prosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty using a long-stemmed cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS)

Background

There is little evidence on techniques for management of peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) in the context of severe proximal femoral bone loss. Custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) utilising cemented femoral stems as spacers was described providing better bone support and longer survival compared to conventional articulating spacers. We retrospectively report our experience managing PJI by adaptation of this technique using long cemented femoral stems where bone loss precludes use of standard stems.

Methods

Patients undergoing 1st stage revision for infected primary and revision THA using a cemented long stem (> 205 mm) and standard all-polyethylene acetabulum between 2011 and 2018 were identified. After excluding other causes of revision (fractures or aseptic loosening), Twenty-one patients remained out of total 721 revisions. Medical records were assessed for demographics, initial microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and subsequent operations. 2nd stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence.

Results

Twenty-one patients underwent 1st stage revision with a cemented long femoral stem. Mean follow up was 3.9 years (range 1.7–7.2). Infection was eradicated in 15 (71.4%) patients. Two patients (9.5%) required repeat 1st stage and subsequently cleared their infection. Three patients (14.3%) had chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. One patient (4.8%) was lost to follow up before 2 years. Complications occurred in seven patients (33%) during or after 1st stage revision. Where infection was cleared, 2nd stage revision was undertaken in 12 patients (76.5%) at average of 9 months post 1st stage. Five (23.8%) CUMARS constructs remained in-situ at an average of 3.8 years post-op (range 2.6–5.1).

Conclusions

Our technique can be used in the most taxing of reconstructive scenarios allowing mobility, local antibiotic delivery, maintenance of leg length and preserves bone and soft tissue, factors not afforded by alternative spacer options.

One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI.

METHODS

A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies.

RESULTS

The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496).

CONCLUSION

In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515-521.

A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a leading cause of revision arthroplasty. Considerable controversy still exists whether single- or two-stage exchange is the better approach for patients with chronic PJI. Historically, single-stage exchange arthroplasty was thought to have an unacceptably high risk of reinfection compared with two-stage exchange but recent studies have demonstrated that this may not be the case. To be considered for single-stage exchange, patients should meet certain criteria including a preoperatively identified nonvirulent pathogen in an immunocompetent host with an uncompromised soft tissue envelope. It is unclear what proportion of patients with chronic PJI actually meet these criteria. Additionally, patients who meet the criteria for single-stage exchange are selected because, in principle, they may be more likely to be able to overcome the infection, but it is unknown what the reinfection risk is in patients undergoing two-stage exchange who might have met selection criteria for single-stage exchange.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of patients with chronic PJI treated at our institution met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange arthroplasty? (2) Is the risk of persistent or recurrent infection lower for patients treated with two-stage exchange who met International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange than it is among those who did not meet those inclusion criteria?

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2016, one referral center treated 120 patients with chronic PJI as determined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. During this time, we used single-stage exchange only rarely in patients with chronic PJI (3%; four of 120), and only in oncologic patients with mega-prosthesis implants; 7% (eight of 120) underwent other procedures (resection arthroplasty or arthrodesis). Of the remaining 108, 16% (17) were lost to follow-up; the remaining 91 were evaluated in this retrospective study. To answer our first question, we applied the International Consensus Meeting indications for single-stage exchange, which were a known nonvirulent preoperative organism, an immunocompetent host, and a healthy soft-tissue envelope without a sinus tract; we then calculated the percentage of patients who would have met those criteria. To answer our second question, we compared those who would and would not have met those criteria in terms of the proportion who were determined to be infection-free at 2 years using the MSIS criteria.

RESULTS

Only 19% (20 of 108) of patients met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange. With the numbers available, there was no difference between those who met and did not meet those criteria in terms of the proportion of patients who had persistent or recurrent infection 2 years after treatment (three of 15 versus 32% [24 of 76]; p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that only a small proportion of patients who presented with chronic PJI to a referral center would have been suitable for single-stage direct exchange; with the numbers available, we found no difference in the reinfection risk after two-stage revision in those patients compared with those who would not have met those criteria. Consequently, it is possible that a small proportion of patients may benefit from single-stage exchange, but our small sample size may have missed important differences in reinfection risk, and so our findings on that question must be considered preliminary. Larger studies randomizing patients who meet single-stage criteria to either single- or two-stage exchange will better elucidate the true reinfection risk in this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Rate of surface contamination in the operating suite during revision total joint arthroplasty

Background

This study estimated operating room surface contamination rates during aseptic vs septic total joint arthroplasty and evaluated the similarity between clinically infecting organisms and those isolated from contaminated surfaces.

Methods

Patients undergoing total hip and knee revision arthroplasties were identified, and surface and tissue samples were collected. Cases were classified aseptic or septic based on Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for prosthetic joint infection. Positive surface cultures were compared with intraoperative tissue cultures. Positive cultures were speciated and tested for antimicrobial sensitivity.

Results

Samples were collected from 31 aseptic and 18 septic cases. Patients had similar demographics and time to explantation. Surface contamination rates for septic revisions were greater than those for aseptic revisions (77% vs 13%). During septic revisions, when intraoperative tissue cultures were positive, the surgical field was contaminated in 14 of 15 cases. The kappa correlation statistic for positive surgical cultures matching the surface sample was 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1).

Conclusions

Septic revisions had a significantly higher rate of surgical field contamination than aseptic revisions. Cultures suggest that bacteria contaminating the septic revision surgical field likely originated from the infected joint. Although this observation seems obvious, it is an important piece of information when discussing best practices during a single-stage exchange revision. Further clinical studies will demonstrate the use of a preparation and reset period during a single-stage revision to remove contaminated surfaces.

Single-stage treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty with cementless reconstruction: results in 126 patients with broad inclusion criteria

AIMS

Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (sd 12.7; 20 to 79).

RESULTS

Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment.

CONCLUSION

Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396-402.

One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Re-infection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6-20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3-38.3) for one-stage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58-5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.

What Is the Role of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Sonication in Periprosthetic Joint Infections?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications in joint replacement surgery. Diagnosis and treatment can be difficult and biofilms are of major concern due to their low susceptibility toward antibiotics.

METHODS

This review focuses on the use of sonication as an evolving diagnostic and adjunct treatment modality in the context of PJI. Therapeutic application of sonication is discussed separately for its (i) direct action on bacteria, (ii) synergistic effects with antibiotics, and (iii) effects on release of antibiotics from bone cement.

RESULTS

Used as a diagnostic tool, sonication shows promising results with respect to sensitivity and specificity when compared to conventional methods, notably after previous administration of antibiotics. As an adjunct treatment modality, the chemical, physical, and mechanical effects of sonication are primarily driven by cavitation and recognized as the main cause for bactericidal effects but the exact underlying mechanisms have not been identified yet. Sonication alone does not have the ability to completely eradicate biofilms but synergistic effects when used in conjunction with antibiotics have been reported. There is also evidence for enhanced antibiotic release from bone cement.

CONCLUSION

Sonication is as an evolving modality in the context of PJIs. As a diagnostic tool, it has not been introduced in routine clinical practice and sonication as a treatment modality in PJIs is still in an experimental stage. Factors such as frequency, pressure, chemical activity, intensity, and exposure time need to be evaluated for optimal application of sonication and may also improve study comparison.

Low-Virulence Organisms and Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Biofilm Considerations of These Organisms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a critical review of peer-reviewed literature over the last 5 years related to low virulent organisms associated with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We evaluated the most common organisms, the diagnostic challenges, and the novel tools available in the perioperative workup of PJI as well as the current understanding of how biofilm potentiates the indolent clinical presentation and explore a possible shift in the surgical management of these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biofilm actively prevents macrophage phagocytosis by suppressing proinflammatory activity through the recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Given the appropriate host and organism conditions, increased utilization of one-stage exchange arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of these low virulent infections may be on the rise. Biomarkers and molecular techniques offer encouraging results to diagnose low virulent organisms and future research focused on the disruption of biofilm may ultimately give rise to improved treatment strategies.

[Treatment of periprosthetic infections]

The increasing number of prosthesis implantations and higher life expectancy lead to a growing number of periprosthetic infections (PPI). Optimal therapy necessitates interdisciplinary coordination of surgical and antimicrobial treatment. Challenges in the treatment are the increased occurrence of resistant pathogens, selection of adequate antimicrobial and surgical treatment strategies, inappropriate pretreatment and comorbidities of patients. Current treatment concepts lead to a high success rate in terms of infection eradication, when correctly applied. The individual expectations and underlying conditions of each patient must be considered when determining the therapy concept. The first step is to distinguish between acute and chronic infections. In acute infections the prosthesis can be retained but chronic infections necessitate a complete exchange of the prosthesis. Complicating factors, such as compromising soft tissue and bone conditions, osteomyelitis and infections caused by difficult-to-treat bacteria should, however, always be treated by a complete exchange of the prosthesis, even for acute infections. The antimicrobial treatment must be tailored to the causative agent, the surgical strategy as well as comorbidities and drug intolerances of the patient. It is important to distinguish between biofilm-active eradication therapy with rifampicin for gram-positive pathogens and quinolones for gram-negative organisms and suppression therapy. This article gives a structured presentation of the therapy algorithm.

Preliminary Results After Changing From Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty Protocol Using Cementless Arthroplasty for Chronic Infected Hip Replacements

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study is to evaluate our preliminary results after changing from a 2-stage revision arthroplasty protocol to a 1-stage revision arthroplasty protocol using cementless arthroplasty for all patients with chronic infected hip replacements.

METHODS

Prospective study of all hip arthroplasties that were diagnosed with chronic infection and were treated using the 1-stage revision without taking into account the traditional criteria used to determine the use of a 1-stage revision was conducted. There were 2 main variables evaluated: infection control and costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated using average cost in USD, excluding social expenses, as described by Klouche (2010) for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included in the study and the infection was controlled in 18 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital for these 19 patients was 391.609 USD.

CONCLUSION

This clinical success has led to an important change in our hospital in treating chronic infected hip replacements and an important cost reduction from an economic point of view.

Prosthetic Joint Infections and Cost Analysis?

Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of arthroplasty surgery that can lead to debilitating morbidity for the patient and significant expense for the healthcare system. With the continual rise of arthroplasty cases worldwide every year, the revision load for infection is becoming a greater financial burden on healthcare budgets. Prevention of infection has to be the key to reducing this burden. For treatment, it is critical for us to collect quality data that can guide future management strategies to minimise healthcare costs and morbidity / mortality for patients. There has been a management shift in many countries to a less expensive 1-stage strategy and in selective cases to the use of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention. These appear very attractive options on many levels, not least cost. However, with a consensus on the definition of joint infection only clarified in 2011, there is still the need for high quality cost analysis data to be collected on how the use of these different methods could impact the healthcare expenditure of countries around the world. With a projected spend on revision for infection at US$1.62 billion in the US alone, this data is vital and urgently needed.

Is Single-stage Revision Safe Following Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Critical Review

With the improvement in outcomes and modern prosthesis design, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has now become a commonly performed surgery. It is postulated that a total of 2-5% of the primary and revision TKA becomes infected every year, requiring a revision procedure which to date is the conventional two-stage revision. The diagnosis and treatment of these periprosthetic infections is a major and challenging task, as it requires precise identification of the pathogen, meticulous debridement, and postoperative rehabilitation. To date, there have been very few studies in existing literature comparing the outcomes of single-stage versus two-stage procedure in infected TKA. The aim of the review was to provide the clinicians an insight into the outcome of the single-stage procedure compared to two-stage procedures and to suggest ways to improve the results further. In the following critical review, a total of 669 cases that underwent either a single or two-stage revision for infected TKA were studied. The postoperative functional scores were comparable in most studies during the early postoperative period. Our data supports the use of a single-stage revision surgery in infected TKA as an alternative to a conventional two-stage procedure. However, larger prospective and multicentric trials are required to validate our findings.

Single-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Infection-An Underutilized Treatment Strategy

BACKGROUND

The burden of revision arthroplasty surgery for infection is rising as the rate of primary arthroplasty surgery increases. Infected arthroplasty rates are now relatively low, but the sheer increase in volume is leading to considerable patient morbidity and significant increases in costs to the health care system. Single-stage revision for infection is one of the several accepted treatment options, but the indications and results are debated. This review aims to clarify the current evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed databases were reviewed for studies that looked at single- or one-stage revision knee or hip arthroplasty for infection.

RESULTS

There is increasing evidence that single-stage revision for infection can control infection and with decreased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs compared with a staged approach. However, the indications are still debated. Recently, there has been a determined effort to define an infected arthroplasty in a manner that will allow for standardization of reporting in the literature. The evidence supporting single stage for knee arthroplasty is catching up with the result with hip arthroplasty. High-quality data from randomized controlled trials are now pending.

CONCLUSION

After the gradual evolution of using the single-stage approach, with the widespread acceptance of this definition, we can now standardize comparisons across the world and move toward a refined definition of the ideal patient population for single-stage arthroplasty revision in both the hip and the knee population.

One-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Joint Infections

Background:

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery. In an aging population of the developed world, the increasing numbers of hip and knee replacements will inevitably lead to increasing incidence of PJI, carrying with (it) significant patient morbidity and cost to the health care system. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is currently the gold standard but it is associated with multiple operations, prolonged hospitalization and impaired functionality. One-stage exchange arthroplasty is similar to the two-stage procedure but the interval between removal of the prosthesis and reimplantation of a new one is only a few minutes. It has the theoretical benefits of a single anesthetic, shorter hospitalization, less cost and improved function.

Methods:

We reviewed the current literature regarding the outcomes of one-stage exchange arthroplasties focusing on re-infection rates and functional outcomes.

Results:

Current themes around the one-stage exchange procedure include the indications for the procedure, definition of re-infection, surgical techniques used to provide fixation and differences in approach for hip and knee replacements.

Conclusion:

The current literature on one-stage exchange procedure is promising, with comparable results to two-stage revisions for hips and knees in selected patients. However, there is a great need for a large multi-centred randomized control trial, focusing on re-infection rates and functional scores postoperatively, to provide concrete guidelines in managing this complex condition.

Two-stage management of the infected total hip arthroplasty

There is currently no consensus on the optimal management of the infected total hip arthroplasty. Multiple management techniques have been described in contemporary literature.This paper focuses on 2-stage revision for the infected total hip arthroplasty. We discuss the rationale and examine the current evidence for the use of this technique.

Designer Dual Therapy Nanolayered Implant Coatings Eradicate Biofilms and Accelerate Bone Tissue Repair

Infections associated with orthopedic implants cause increased morbidity and significant healthcare cost. A prolonged and expensive two-stage procedure requiring two surgical steps and a 6-8 week period of joint immobilization exists as today's gold standard for the revision arthroplasty of an infected prosthesis. Because infection is much more common in implant replacement surgeries, these issues greatly impact long-term patient care for a continually growing part of the population. Here, we demonstrate that a single-stage revision using prostheses coated with self-assembled, hydrolytically degradable multilayers that sequentially deliver the antibiotic (gentamicin) and the osteoinductive growth factor (BMP-2) in a time-staggered manner enables both eradication of established biofilms and complete and rapid bone tissue repair around the implant in rats with induced osteomyelitis. The nanolayered construct allows precise independent control of release kinetics and loading for each therapeutic agent in an infected implant environment. Antibiotics contained in top layers can be tuned to provide a rapid release at early times sufficient to eliminate infection, followed by sustained release for several weeks, and the underlying BMP-2 component enables a long-term sustained release of BMP-2, which induced more significant and mechanically competent bone formation than a short-term burst release. The successful growth factor-mediated osteointegration of the multilayered implants with the host tissue improved bone-implant interfacial strength 15-fold when compared with the uncoated one. These findings demonstrate the potential of this layered release strategy to introduce a durable next-generation implant solution, ultimately an important step forward to future large animal models toward the clinic.

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the most effective for treating periprosthetic knee infection. The one-stage revision strategy is an emerging alternative option, however, its performance in comparison to the two-stage strategy is unclear. We therefore sought to ask if there was a difference in re-infection rates and other clinical outcomes when comparing the one-stage to the two-stage revision strategy.

OBJECTIVE

Our first objective was to compare re-infection (new and recurrent infections) rates for one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic knee infection. Our second objective was to compare between the two revision strategies, clinical outcomes as measured by postoperative Knee Society Knee score, Knee Society Function score, Hospital for Special Surgery knee score, WOMAC score, and range of motion.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.

STUDY SELECTION

Longitudinal (prospective or retrospective cohort) studies conducted in generally unselected patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision surgery. No clinical trials comparing both revision strategies were identified.

REVIEW METHODS

Two independent investigators extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. Re-infection rates from 10 one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5,129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.

RESULTS

The rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 7.6% (3.4-13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding re-infection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2-10.6). In subgroup analyses, re-infection rates remained generally similar for several study-level and clinically relevant characteristics. Postoperative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies.

LIMITATIONS

Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from aggregate published data suggest the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients. Further investigation is warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.

Can Good Infection Control Be Obtained in One-stage Exchange of the Infected TKA to a Rotating Hinge Design? 10-year Results

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Although two-stage exchange is the preferred management method of patients with chronic PJI in TKA in North America, one-stage exchange is an alternative treatment method, but long-term studies of this approach have not been conducted.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We reviewed our minimum 9-year results of 70 patients who underwent one-stage exchange arthroplasty with a rotating hinge design to determine: (1) What was the proportion of patients free of infection? (2) What was the patient rate of survival free of any reoperation? (3) What were the clinical outcomes as measured by Hospital for Special Surgery scores? (4) What proportion of patients developed radiographic evidence of loosening?

METHODS

All one-stage revision TKAs for infection between January 1 and December 31, 2002, with a minimum 9-year followup (mean, 10 years; range, 9-11 years), in which patients had been seen within the last 1 year, were included in this retrospective review. During that period, 11 patients with infected TKAs were treated with other approaches (including two-stage approaches in eight); the general indication for one-stage revision was the diagnosis of PJI with a known causative organism. Exclusion criteria were culture-negative preoperative aspiration, known allergy to local antibiotics or bone cement, or cases in which radical débridement was impossible as a result of the involvement of important anatomical structures. Eighty-one patients with PJI were seen during this period; 70 underwent one-stage exchange using our strict protocol and were reimplanted with a rotating hinge TKA. Eleven patients (15.7%) were lost to followup. Hospital for Special Surgery scores were recorded and all radiographs were evaluated for prosthetic loosening. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection or any other cause.

RESULTS

Our 10-year infection-free survival was 93% (mean, 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%; p < 0.007); and the patient 10-year survival rate free of revision for other causes was 91% (mean, 5.2; 95% CI, 86%-95%; p < 0.002). Mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score at last followup was 69.6 (± 22.5 SD; range, 22-100) and the mean improvement in Hospital for Special Surgery knee score from preoperative to most recent followup was 35 (± 24.2 SD; range, 13-99). Evidence of radiographic loosening was seen in 11 patients at last followup, whereby in six patients, there was need for revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results showed an overall infection control rate of 93% and good clinical results using our one-stage approach, which combines aggressive débridement of the collateral ligaments and posterior capsule with a rotating hinge implant. These results are comparable with two-stage techniques at a followup of 10 years; further research into one-stage exchange techniques for PJI in TKA appears warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Single-Stage Hip and Knee Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infections following hip and knee arthroplasty are challenging complications for Orthopaedic surgeons to manage. The single-stage exchange procedure is becoming increasingly popular with promising results. At our Institute we have demonstrated favourable or similar outcomes compared to the 'gold-standard' two-stage exchange, and other published single-stage results. The aim of this study is to describe the patient selection criteria and perioperative steps in a single-stage exchange for hip and knee arthroplasty undertaken at our Institute. The outlined protocol can be performed using standard debridement, attention to detail and well-recognised reconstructive techniques.

Surgical Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee: Changing Paradigms?

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee remains one of the most common and feared arthroplasty complications. The impact and cost of PJI is significant, both to the patient and to the health care system. Recent reports of results of different treatment strategies have led many surgeons to modify their approach to management of PJI. This paper will explore apparent paradigm shifts, both to indications and technique, including the importance of waiting for bacterial identification, the decreasing role for irrigation and debridement (I&D) with retention of components, the increased utilization of single stage revision, and conversely a decreasing role for two-stage exchange. Strategies for treating drug-resistant organisms and management of failed treatment will also be examined.

Is single-stage revision according to a strict protocol effective in treatment of chronic knee arthroplasty infections?

BACKGROUND

The increasing number of patients experiencing periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) infections and the cost of treating them suggest that we seek alternatives to two-stage revision. Single-stage revision is a potential alternative to the standard two-stage procedure because it involves only one surgical procedure, so if it is comparably effective, it would be associated with less patient morbidity and lower cost.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We compared (1) the degree to which our protocol of a highly selective single-stage revision approach achieved infection control compared with a two-stage revision approach to TKA infections; and (2) Knee Society scores and radiographic evidence of implant fixation between the single-stage and two-stage patients who were treated for more complicated infections.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2009, we treated 102 patients for chronic TKA infections, of whom 28 (27%) were treated using a single-stage approach and 74 (73%) were treated using a two-stage approach. All patients were available for followup at a minimum of 3 years (mean, 6.5 years; range, 3-9 years). The indications for using a single-stage approach were minimal/moderate bone loss, the absence of immunocompromise, healthy soft tissues, and a known organism with known sensitivities for which appropriate antibiotics are available. Participants included 38 men and 64 women with a mean age of 65 years (range, 45-87 years). We used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society definition of periprosthetic joint infection to confirm infection control at the last followup appointment. Radiographs were evaluated for signs of loosening, and patients completed Knee Society Scores for clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

None of the patients in the single-stage revision group developed recurrence of infection, and five patients (93%) in the two-stage revision group developed reinfection (p=0.16). Patients treated with a single-stage approach had higher Knee Society scores than did patients treated with the two-stage approach (88 versus 76, p<0.001). However, radiographic findings showed a well-fixed prosthesis in all patients with no evidence of loosening at last followup in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide preliminary support to the use of a single-stage approach in highly selected patients with chronically infected TKAs as an alternative to a two-stage procedure. However, larger, multicenter, prospective trials are called for to validate our findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of infected revision knee arthroplasty managed by two-stage revision in a tertiary referral centre

BACKGROUND

A two-stage revision remains the gold standard to eradicate deep infection in total knee arthroplasty. Higher failure rates are associated with a number of factors including poly-microbial infections, multiresistant organisms and previous operations. The aims are to investigate [1] the overall success rate of a two-stage revision for infections in TKA, [2] the outcome of repeat two-stage revisions in recurrent infections and [3] the factors affecting the outcomes of such cases.

METHODS

We present the outcomes of a consecutive, retrospective case series of 51 periprosthetic joint infections managed with a two-stage revision knee arthroplasty over a three year period.

RESULTS

Forty-six (90%) of 51 were referred from other hospitals. Infection was successfully eradicated in 24 (65%) of 37 patients undergoing an initial two-stage procedure. Following a failed two-stage revision, a repeat two-stage revision was performed in 19 patients eradicating infection in 8 (42%). A third two-stage was performed in five of these patients eradicating infection in three with an average follow-up of 43 months. Multidrug resistance was present in 69%, and 47% of the patients were infected with multiple organisms. All unsuccessful outcomes involved at least one multidrug-resistant organism compared to 43% in the successful cohort (P=0.0002). Serological markers prior to a second-stage procedure were not significantly different between successful and unsuccessful outcome groups.

CONCLUSION

Single or multiple two-stage revisions can eradicate infection despite previous failed attempts. In this series, failure is associated with multidrug resistance, previous failed attempts to eradicate infection and a less favourable host response.

Low-grade periprosthetic knee infection: diagnosis and management

Diagnosis and management of low-grade periprosthetic knee infection are still controversial and debatable. The diagnosis of low-grade infection after total knee arthroplasty is often complex, as clinical symptomatology and diagnostic studies are highly conflicting and knees often exhibit well-fixed components. Although the criterion standard for staged reimplantation is interim placement of an antibiotic-loaded spacer, less-invasive surgical procedures have been advocated for managing infections caused by low-virulence bacteria. Debridement with polyethylene exchange and single-stage reimplantation could offer advantages, such as fewer surgeries, reduced potential for intraoperative complications, and lower direct social costs. The aim of this narrative review was to analyze the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of different surgical procedures in managing low-grade periprosthetic knee infections. Additionally, the most reliable investigations for diagnosing total knee infection caused by low-virulence bacteria were reviewed.

Level of evidence Level V.

A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded.

RESULTS

63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority.