Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention with the Direct Anterior Approach for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Primary THA

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.

The Impact of Surgical Approach on 90-Day Prosthetic Joint Infection After Total Hip Replacement - A Population-Based, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to determine if the anterior approach (AP) influenced the incidence of early PJI in THA compared to posterior approach (PP).

METHODS

Record linkage was performed between state-wide hospitalization data and a national joint replacement registry to identify unilateral THA performed via the AP or PP. Complete data on 12,605 AP and 25,569 PP THAs were obtained. Propensity score matching (PSM) was undertaken to match covariates between the approaches. Outcomes were the 90-day PJI hospital readmission rate(using narrow and broad definitions) and 90-day PJI revision rate (defined as component removal or exchange).

RESULTS

The raw PJI readmission rate for AP was lower than PP (0.8% versus 1.1%, respectively). In the PSM analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in PJI readmission rate between approaches using narrow or broad definition of PJI readmission. In terms of revision for infection, both methods showed AP had a significantly lower rate than PP, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30, 0.75) for the 1:1 nearest neighbor method and 0.50 (95% CI 0.32, 0.77) for the subclassification method.

CONCLUSION

After addressing known confounders, there was no significant difference in the 90-day hospital readmission rate for hip PJI between approaches. There was a significantly reduced 90-day PJI revision rate for AP. The difference in revision may reflect differences in the surgical management of PJI between hip approaches rather than a difference in the underlying rate of infection.

Dislocation After Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip

BACKGROUND

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a common treatment option for hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, noninfectious outcomes of DAIR such as instability are not well reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors for hip dislocation post-DAIR for PJI of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified all patients who underwent DAIR of a primary or revision THA over a 20-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up. A total of 151 patients met inclusion criteria, 19.9% of whom had a post-DAIR dislocation. Demographic and intraoperative variables were obtained. Patients who had modular components exchanged during DAIR to those with increased offset, increased "jump distance", or a more stable acetabular liner were defined as patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability." Predictors of hip dislocation post-DAIR were inserted into a multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Post-DAIR dislocation rates were 16.3% in primary THAs and 25.4% in revision THAs. In patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability" during hip DAIR, there was at least an 11-fold reduction (1/odds ratio (OR), 0.09) in dislocation risk compared to patients who had no components altered during modular component exchange during hip DAIR (OR, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.44; P < .001), while a 13-fold increased dislocation risk was seen in patients with a history of neuromuscular disease (OR, 13.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-104.09; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

During DAIR of hip PJI, surgeons should consider prophylactically exchanging components to increase stability even if components appear stable intraoperatively.

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.

Modular component exchange and outcome of DAIR for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection : a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Aims

The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist.

Results

We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before.

Level of Evidence: Level III

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812.

Dair approach in 7 infected total hip arthroplasties: our experience and current concepts of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most challenging complications following total hip arthroplasty. In early infection, within four to twelve weeks from surgery, debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) can be the initial treatment. The aim of this study is to report our case series and review current concepts reported in the literature about this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational cohort study that included 7 patients managed with DAIR for PJI following primary total hip replacement (THR) between 2014 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were a primary THR, direct anterior or lateral approach, DAIR procedure, and PJI. Exclusion criteria were a PJI following a revision total hip replacement or hemiarthroplasty, posterolateral approach, 1-stage revision, 2-stage revision, and Girdlestone procedure without prior DAIR. For each patient demographic characteristics, laboratory values, microorganisms involved, antibiotic therapy and outcome at one-year follow-up were registered.

RESULTS

The mean duration between THR and DAIR was 19 days. In all cases only one DAIR procedure was performed. Most infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus (4 cases) [one methicillin resistant (MRSA)]. The other infections were caused by Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus coagulase negative and Escherichia coli. At the final follow-up, the procedure was considered as successful in 6 out of 7 patients (85%). The one with unsuccessful outcome underwent to a two-stage revision.

DISCUSSION

Our results were comparable with those of a recent systematic review of the literature. Factors that have been postulated to influence the outcome of DAIR in the management of PJIs include the timing and numbers of debridement, the exchange of components, the responsible microorganism and the duration of antibiotic treatment. In conclusion, the outcomes following DAIR are better as the indications are refined and risk factors identified. PJI prevention remains the key but the current literature still lacks well documented and effective PJI prevention protocols. (www.actabiomedica.it).