Results of 'two-in-one' single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for infection with associated bone loss : prospective five-year follow up

Local antibiotic delivery via intra-articular catheter infusion for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest in the use of intra-articular (IA) antibiotic infusion as a stand-alone or adjuvant therapy to standard revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence with respect to this up-and-coming treatment modality.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published until April 2023 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Quality assessment was performed with the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a mean follow-up of ≥ 11 months and a score ≥ 6 on the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. Primary outcome was eradication of infection.

RESULTS

15 articles, encompassing 631 PJIs in 626 patients, were included in the final analysis, all level IV case series. The majority was treated with single-stage revision with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (79.1%). The remaining PJIs were treated with stand-alone IA antibiotic infusion (12.2%), DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (5.7%) or two-stage revision with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (3.0%). Mean duration of IA antibiotic infusion was 19 days (range 3-50). An overall failure rate of approximately 11% was found. In total 117 complications occurred, 71 were non-catheter-related and 46 were catheter-related. The most common catheter-related complications were premature loss of the catheter (18/46) and elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels (12/46).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of comparative studies the (added) benefit of IA antibiotic infusion in the treatment of PJI remains uncertain. Based on the current evidence, we would advise against using it as a stand-alone treatment. A prospective randomized controlled trial using a well-described infusion protocol is needed to see if the potential benefits justify the increased costs and potential complications of this treatment modality.

Single-stage revision in the management of prosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty - A review of current concepts

Introduction

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA); and the gold standard surgical approach involves a two-staged, revision TKA (TSR). Owing to the newer, emerging evidence on this subject, there has been gradual shift towards a single-stage revision approach (SSR), with the purported benefits of mitigated patient morbidity, decreased complications and reduced costs. However, there is still substantial lacuna in the evidence regarding the safety and outcome of the two approaches in chronic PJI. This study aimed to comprehensively review of the literature on SSR; and evaluate its role within Revision TKA post PJI.

Methods

The narrative review involved a comprehensive search of the databases (Embase, Medline and Pubmed), conducted on 20th of January 2024 using specific key words. All the manuscripts discussing the use of SSR for the management of PJI after TKA were considered for the review. Among the screened manuscripts, opinion articles, letters to the editor and non-English manuscripts were excluded.

Results

The literature search yielded a total 232 studies. Following a detailed scrutiny of these manuscripts, 26 articles were finally selected. The overall success rate following SSR is reported to range from 73 % to 100 % (and is comparable to TSR). SSR is performed in PJI patients with bacteriologically-proven infection, adequate soft tissue cover, immuno-competent host and excellent tolerance to antibiotics. The main difference between SSR and TSR is that the interval between the 2 stages is only a few minutes instead of 6 weeks. Appropriate topical, intraoperative antibiotic therapy, followed by adequate postoperative systemic antibiotic cover are necessary to ascertain good outcome. Some of the major benefits of SSR over TSR include reduced morbidity, decreased complications (such as arthrofibrosis or anesthesia-associated adverse events), meliorated extremity function, earlier return to activities, mitigated mechanical (prosthesis-associated) complications and enhanced patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

SSR is a reliable approach for the management of chronic PJI. Based on our comprehensive review of the literature, it may be concluded that the right selection of patients, extensive debridement, sophisticated reconstruction strategy, identification of the pathogenic organism, initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy and ensuring adequate follow-up are the key determinants of successful outcome. To achieve this will undoubtedly require an MDT approach to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Proceedings of the United Kingdom Periprosthetic Joint Infection Meeting 2022: Combined and Arthroplasty Sessions

Considerable variation in practice exists in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), which is a devastating complication for patients and surgeons. The consensus principle has been increasingly embraced by the orthopaedic community to help guide practice, especially where high-level evidence remains unavailable. The third United Kingdom Periprosthetic Joint Infection (UK PJI) Meeting was held in Glasgow on April 1, 2022, with more than 180 delegates in attendance, representing orthopaedics, microbiology, infectious diseases, plastic surgery, anesthetics, and allied health professions, including pharmacy and arthroplasty nurses. The meeting comprised a combined session for all delegates, and separate breakout sessions for arthroplasty and fracture-related infection. Consensus questions for each session were prepared in advance by the UK PJI working group, based upon topics that were proposed at previous UK PJI Meetings, and delegates participated in an anonymized electronic voting process. We present the findings of the combined and arthroplasty sessions of the meeting in this article, and each consensus topic is discussed in relation to the contemporary literature.

The impact of a revision arthroplasty network on patient outcomes

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA.

Methods

The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England.

Conclusion

Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in One-Stage Revision of Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Total knee replacement (TKA) is becoming a routine procedure in orthopedic surgery. One of the possible complications of this surgery is periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to identify, through a literature review, which antibiotic is used as prophylaxis for septic one-stage revision TKA and what is the rationale for its use.

METHODS

We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO on Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and the Google Scholar Database. The searches were limited by date (January 2005 to September 2022) and to the English language. All types of original research were considered, including prospective or retrospective longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized trials. The specific search terms were ((antibiotic [MeSH]) AND (prophylaxis)) and (TKA OR TKR OR "Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee" [MeSH] OR ((knee) adj2 (replace* OR arthroplasty* OR prosthe*))).

RESULTS

Despite our research efforts, we found no article capable of answering the question of which antibiotic to use as surgical prophylaxis for a septic revision one-stage TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the research results are inconclusive, we would recommend using the same antibiotic prophylaxis as for primary joint replacement, i.e., cefazolin, as it was recommended for its low side effect rate and relative effectiveness.

Effective single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion after multiple failed surgery for periprosthetic joint infection : a mean seven years' follow-up

AIMS

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis included 78 PJI patients (29 hips; 49 knees) who had undergone multiple prior surgical interventions. Our cohort was treated with single-stage revision using a supplementary intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Of these 78 patients, 59 had undergone more than two prior failed debridement and implant retentions, 12 patients had a failed arthroplasty resection, three hips had previously undergone failed two-stage revision, and four had a failed one-stage revision before their single-stage revision. Previous failure was defined as infection recurrence requiring surgical intervention. Besides intravenous pathogen-sensitive agents, an intra-articular infusion of vancomycin, imipenem, or voriconazole was performed postoperatively. The antibiotic solution was soaked into the joint for 24 hours for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), then extracted before next injection. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (87.1%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 85 months (24 to 133). The seven-year infection-free survival was 87.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79.4 to 95.8). No significant difference in infection-free survival was observed between hip and knee PJIs (91.5% (95% CI 79.9 to 100) vs 84.7% (95% CI 73.1 to 96.3); p = 0.648). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score was 76.1 points (63.2 to 92.4) and Hospital for Special Surgery score was 78. 2 (63.2 to 92.4) at the most recent assessment. Polymicrobial and fungal infections accounted for 14.1% (11/78) and 9.0% (7/78) of all cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revision with intra-articular antibiotic infusion can provide high antibiotic concentration in synovial fluid, thereby overcoming reduced vascular supply and biofilm formation. This supplementary route of administration may be a viable option in treating PJI after multiple failed prior surgeries for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):867-874.