A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study

The Efficacy of Antibiotic-Loaded Calcium Sulfate Beads (Stimulan) in Patients with Hip Arthroplasty Infections

Background: Given the increasing rate of infections following hip arthroplasty, one of the current options is the application of a biocomposite at the site of the infection. One of the products used is Stimulan, a completely resorbable calcium sulfate, designed to treat acute and chronic infections. This biocomposite has a controlled purity, is easy to mix with liquid, powder, and antibiotics, and can be applied directly to the site of infection, or it can be injected. Methods: We analyzed data from 76 patients, who were admitted to the County Clinical Hospital of Emergency "St. Apostol Andrei" in Galati during January 2017-September 2023, with a diagnosis of infection associated with hip arthroplasty. Results: In 69.73% of cases (52 patients), we decided to keep the implant in place. In this subgroup, Stimulan was applied in 26 cases (57.78%). Of these, 100% were cured-compared to the subgroup in which Stimulan was not applied, where this percentage was lower. All patients underwent chemical and mechanical toileting, and for 24 patients (20.27%), it was necessary to ablate the implant with or without the application of Stimulan, then reimplantation of the prosthesis. Conclusions: The patients with Stimulan had a longer average length of hospitalization, almost half of them required intervention in two periods, and a quarter required the implantation of spacers. However, the cure rate was higher, only in three people could we not control the infection, and there was no death. This study confirms the effectiveness of the treatment when using a biocomposite in addition to the classical treatment for both acute and chronic cases.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after knee arthroplasty: a call for a randomised trial

Purpose

Knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for severe knee degeneration; however, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of its serious complications. Single- and two-stage revision are common treatments, but few studies have compared single- and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare the reinfection and reoperation rates of single- and two-stage revision through meta-analysis.

Methods

The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for trials comparing single- and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty from the respective inception dates to April 2023. Two researchers individually screened the studies, performed the literature quality evaluation and data extraction and used Stata 17 software for data analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis showed that the reinfection rate was significantly lower in the single-stage revision group than in the two-stage revision group. While the reoperation rates demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two groups. We presented descriptive results because the discrepancies in the knee function scores and data reported in the studies meant that these data could not be combined in the meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Based on the available research, single-stage revision is a reliable option for PJI after knee arthroplasty. However, when developing the best treatment strategy, it is still necessary to consider the individual circumstances and needs of the patient, as well as the risks of postoperative rehabilitation and complications.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.