Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

Advancements in treatment strategies for periprosthetic joint infections: A comprehensive review

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a critical challenge in orthopedic care, contributing to significant patient morbidity and healthcare costs. This burden is expected to increase secondary to growing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Despite the profound significance of PJI, there is currently no universally accepted "gold standard" diagnostic criteria using serum biomarker thresholds; latest criteria fail to differentiate acute infections from chronic or consider time since initial surgery. Furthermore, contemporary PJI treatment, which conventionally requires 2-stage revision surgery in conjunction with rigorous antibiotic treatment, can be particularly taxing on patients. Fortunately, recent years have seen marked evolution in both PJI diagnosis and treatment methods. Contemporary research supports time-dependent serum biomarker thresholds with greater sensitivity and specificity than previously reported, as well as alternative surgical options which may be more suitable for certain patients. The following narrative review aims to describe the significance and pathogenesis of PJI before characterizing current challenges, novel innovations, and the future landscape of PJI diagnosis and management. Here, we spotlight the emerging utility of novel biomarkers and metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosis, advancements in patient-centered surgical outcome prediction tools for PJI risk assessment and prevention, and evolving surgical techniques including 1-stage and a "hybrid" 1.5-stage revision surgeries. Additionally, we explore cutting-edge therapeutic modalities including peptide and bacteriophage-based treatments, intraoperative anti-biofilm gel, the VT-X7 antibiotic pump, and promising immune-based interventions. Ultimately, these advancements hold the potential to revolutionize PJI management, offering hope for improved outcomes and reduced burdens on healthcare systems.

Enhancing Pathogen Detection in Implant-Related Infections through Chemical Antibiofilm Strategies: A Comprehensive Review

Implant-related infections (IRIs) represent a significant challenge to modern surgery. The occurrence of these infections is due to the ability of pathogens to aggregate and form biofilms, which presents a challenge to both the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of the infection. Biofilms provide pathogens with protection from the host immune response and antibiotics, making detection difficult and complicating both single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. This narrative review examines advanced chemical antibiofilm techniques with the aim of improving the detection and identification of pathogens in IRIs. The articles included in this review were selected from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, MDPI and SpringerLink, which focus on recent studies evaluating the efficacy and enhanced accuracy of microbiological sampling and culture following the use of chemical antibiofilm. Although promising results have been achieved with the successful application of some antibiofilm chemical pre-treatment methods, mainly in orthopedics and in cardiovascular surgery, further research is required to optimize and expand their routine use in the clinical setting. This is necessary to ensure their safety, efficacy and integration into diagnostic protocols. Future studies should focus on standardizing these techniques and evaluating their effectiveness in large-scale clinical trials. This review emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in developing reliable diagnostic tools and highlights the need for innovative approaches to improve outcomes for patients undergoing both single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for implant-related infections.

The influence of gut microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections: State-of-the art

Early periprosthetic joint infection constitutes one of the most frightening complications of joint replacement. Recently, some evidence has highlighted the potential link between dysregulation of the gut microbiota and degenerative diseases of joints. It has been hypothesized that microbiome dysbiosis may increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection by facilitating bacterial translocation from these sites to the bloodstream or by impairing local or systemic immune responses. Although the processes tying the gut microbiome to infection susceptibility are still unknown, new research suggests that the presurgical gut microbiota-a previously unconsidered component-may influence the patient's ability to resist infection. Exploring the potential impact of the microbiome on periprosthetic joint infections may therefore bring new insights into the pathogenesis and therapy of these disorders. For a successful therapy, a proper surgical procedure in conjunction with an antibacterial concept is essential. As per the surgical approach, different treatment strategies include surgical irrigation, debridement, antibiotic therapy, and implant retention with or without polyethylene exchange. Other alternatives could be one-stage or two-stage revisions surgery. Interventions that either directly target gut microbes as well as interventions that modify the composition and/or function of the commensal microbes represent an innovative and potentially successful field to be explored. In recent times, innovative therapeutic methods have arisen in the realm of microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related ailments. These progressive approaches offer fresh perspectives on tackling intricate microbial imbalances in the gastrointestinal tract. These emerging therapies signify a shift towards more precise and individualized approaches to microbiome restoration and the management of gut-related disorders. Once a more advanced knowledge of the pathways linking the gut microbiota to musculoskeletal tissues is gained, relevant microbiome-based therapies can be developed. If dysbiosis is proven to be a significant contributor, developing treatments for dysbiosis may represent a new frontier in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections.

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.

Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review

Prosthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.

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.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for the early prosthetic joint infection of total knee and hip arthroplasties: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents one of the most fearsome complications of joint replacement. No international consensus has been reached regarding the best approach for early prosthetic knee and hip infections. The aim of this updated systematic review is to assess whether debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective choice of treatment in early postoperative and acute hematogenous PJI.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The diagnostic criteria defining a PJI, the most present pathogen, and the days between the index procedure and the onset of the PJI were extracted from the selected articles. Additionally, the mean follow-up, antibiotic regimen, and success rate of the treatment were also reported.

RESULTS

The articles included provided a cohort of 970 patients. Ten studies specified the joint of their cohort in PJIs regarding either hip prostheses or knee prostheses, resulting in 454 total knees and 460 total hips. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 92 years old. Success rates for the DAIR treatments in the following cohort ranged from 55.5% up to a maximum of 90% (mean value of 71%).

CONCLUSION

Even though the DAIR procedure is quite limited, it is still considered an effective option for patients developing an early post-operative or acute hematogenous PJI. However, there is a lack of studies, in particular randomized control trials (RCTs), comparing DAIR with one-stage and two-stage revision protocols in the setting of early PJIs, reflecting the necessity to conduct further high-quality studies to face the burden of early PJI.

Outcomes of Enterobacter cloacae-Associated Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Hip Arthroplasties

Background

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a serious complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are associated with significant morbidity. While recent data suggest that Enterobacter cloacae is an emerging source of PJI, characteristics and outcomes of E. cloacae-associated infections are rarely described. The study aimed to present and describe the findings and outcomes of E. cloacae-associated PJI in our department.

Methods

This is a retrospective descriptive study of patients who underwent revision THA for E. cloacae-associated PJI between 2011 and 2020 and has a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Outcomes included organism characteristics as well as clinical outcomes, represented by the number of reoperations needed for PJI eradication and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) outcome reporting tool score. Of 108 revision THAs, 12 patients (11.1%) were diagnosed with E. cloacae-associated PJI.

Results

The majority of cases had a polymicrobial PJI (n=8, 66.7%). Five E. cloacae strains (41.7%) were gentamicin-resistant. Six patients (50.0%) underwent 2 or more revisions, while 3 of them (25.0%) required 4 or more revisions until their PJI was resolved. When utilizing the MSIS outcome score, the first surgical intervention was considered successful (MSIS score tiers 1 and 2) for 5 patients (41.7%) and failed (tiers 3 and 4) for 7 patients (58.3%).

Conclusions

E. cloacae is emerging as a common source of PJI following hip arthroplasty procedures. The findings of our study suggest that this pathogen is primarily of polymicrobial nature and represents high virulence and poor postoperative outcomes, as represented by both an increased number of required revision procedures and high rates of patients with MSIS outcome scores of 3 and 4. When managing patients with E. cloacae-associated PJI, surgeons should consider these characteristics and inform patients regarding predicted outcomes.

Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%.

DISCUSSION

Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

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.

One- or two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee prosthesis?

A prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is possibly the most significant potential complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and is associated with substantial morbidity and socioeconomic burden. It is a devastating complication for both the patient and the surgeon alike. A two-stage revision approach for infected TKA has been the standard for surgical management; however, there is growing interest in single-stage revision surgery due to fewer procedures, reduced inpatient hospital stay and reduced costs to healthcare systems. A one-stage exchange is indicated when there is no sign of systemic sepsis and in cases where a microorganism has been isolated. It involves removal of the old prosthesis, debridement of all infected tissue, a copious washout and re-draping, and finally, re-implantation of a new prosthesis. The two-stage approach involves the use of an antibiotic spacer before the second stage is carried out. The length of time between the stages is discussed. Patients with a PJI should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. We recommend these patients are managed in specialist arthroplasty centres by high volume revision arthroplasty specialists.

Single-Stage Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Preoperative Planning, Surgical Technique, and Mixed Reality Execution

Revision shoulder arthroplasty is increasing with the number of primary shoulder replacements rising globally. Complex primary and revisions of shoulder arthroplasties pose specific challenges for the surgeon, which must be addressed preoperatively and intraoperatively. This article aimed to present strategies for the management of revision of shoulder arthroplasties through a single-stage approach. Preoperatively, patient factors, such as age, comorbidities, and bone quality, should be considered. The use of planning software can aid in accurately evaluating implants in situ and predict bony anatomy that will remain after explantation during the revision surgery. The planning from such software can then be executed with the help of mixed reality technology to allow accurate implant placement. Single-stage revision is performed in two steps (debridement as first step, implantation and reconstruction as the second step), guided by the following principles: adequate debridement while preserving key soft tissue attachments (i.e., rotator cuff, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, deltoid), restoration of glenoid joint line using bone grafting, restoration of humeral length, reconstruction and/or reattachment of soft tissues, and strict compliance with the postoperative antibiotic regimen. Preliminary results of single-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty show improvement in patient outcomes (mean 1 year), successful treatment of infection for those diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infection, and improved cost-benefit parameters for the healthcare system.

Determination of the Elution Capacity of Dalbavancin in Bone Cements: New Alternative for the Treatment of Biofilm-Related Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infections Based on an In Vitro Study

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement is the most widely used approach for the treatment of biofilm-induced septic sequelae in orthopedic surgery. Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide that acts against Gram-positive bacteria and has a long half-life, so we aimed to assess whether it could be a new alternative drug in antibiotic-loaded bone cement for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. We assessed the elution capacity of dalbavancin and compared it with that of vancomycin in bone cement. Palacos®R (Heraeus Medical GmbH, Wehrheim, Germany) bone cement was manually mixed with each of the antibiotics studied at 2.5% and 5%. Three cylinders were obtained from each of the mixtures; these were weighed and incubated in 5 mL phosphate-buffered saline at 37°C under shaking for 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 24 h, 48 h, 168 h, and 336 h. PBS was replenished at each time point. The samples were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (vancomycin) and mass cytometry (dalbavancin). Elution was higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)90 for both antibiotics after 14 days of study. The release of vancomycin at 14 days was higher than of dalbavancin at each concentration tested (p = 0.05, both). However, the cumulative release of 5% dalbavancin was similar to that of 2.5% vancomycin (p = 0.513). The elution capacity of dalbavancin reached a cumulative concentration similar to that of vancomycin. Moreover, considering that the MIC90 of dalbavancin is one third that of vancomycin (0.06 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively) and given the long half-life of dalbavancin, it may be a new alternative for the treatment of biofilm-related periprosthetic infections when loaded in bone cement.

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.

Clinical Outcomes After Stage-One Antibiotic Coated Molded Hip Spacer

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard for managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We evaluated the outcomes of patients treated with a specific molded articulating antibiotic hip spacer for PJI at a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

An institutional database was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent implantation of spacer between 2009-2019. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

We identified 88 patients at an average age of 60.4 years who received a spacer implant, with an average of 4.2 years follow-up (standard deviation [SD] 2.5 years). A total of 34 patients (38.6%) had a "clean" two-stage course with successful reimplantation and no evidence of infection at 1-year follow-up. The remaining patients (61.4%) required 3.67 (±0.52) additional surgeries. Overall reimplantation rate was 72%. Causative bacterial agents included MSSA (n = 22), MRSA (n = 16), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n = 14), and polymicrobial (n = 12). Regarding complications, there were 13 (15%) dislocations, 16 (18%) periprosthetic fractures, 8 (9%) bent/fractured stems, and 16 (18%) patients had clinically significant subsidence. Patients with previous extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) experienced higher rates of bent/broken spacer stems (25% vs 3.1%; P = .006) periprosthetic fractures (37.5% vs 10.9%; P = .010), and dislocations (37.5% vs 6.2%; P = .001). The rate of infection clearance was lower in the prior ETO cohort (26.6% vs 54.2%; P = .029).

CONCLUSION

We report outcomes in patients who underwent implantation of a specific molded articulating hip spacer at our institution. Infection eradication was roughly in line with published series of hip PJI treatment. There was a high rate of mechanical complications, especially in those patients who required an ETO.

One-Stage Hip Revision Arthroplasty Using Megaprosthesis in Severe Bone Loss of The Proximal Femur Due to Radiological Diffuse Osteomyelitis

Managing substantial proximal and/or distal femoral bone defects is one of the biggest challenges in chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection. Most authors use two-stage arthroplasty with a temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for the management of these patients. In this study, we show our experience with one-stage exchange arthroplasty in managing severe bone defects due to radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis. Two patients were included in the study. They showed radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis, and they were treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty using megaprosthesis. Diffuse osteomyelitis was confirmed in both cases; in one case, the histology was compatible with osteomyelitis, and the other case had a positive culture identified in a bone sample. At a minimum of a four-year follow-up, the patients did not reveal any clinical, radiological or laboratory signs of infection. In conclusion, one-stage exchange arthroplasty and megaprosthesis is an option for the treatment of chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection associated with radiological-diffuse proximal femoral osteomyelitis.

Management strategies for prosthetic joint infection: long-term infection control rates, overall survival rates, functional and quality of life outcomes

DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention), one-stage and two-stage revision surgery are the most common management strategies for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) management. Our knowledge concerning their efficacy is based on short to medium-term low-quality studies.

Most studies report infection recurrence rates or infection-free time intervals. However, long-term survival rates of the infection-free joints, functional and quality of life outcome data are of paramount importance.

DAIR, one-stage and two-stage revision strategies are not unique surgical techniques, presenting several variables. Infection control rates for the above strategies vary from 75% to 90%, but comparisons are difficult because different indications and patient selection criteria are used in each strategy.

Recent outcome data show that DAIR and one-stage revision in selected patients (based on host, bacteriological, soft tissue and type of infection criteria) may present improved functional and quality of life outcomes and reduced costs for health systems as compared to those of two-stage revision.

It is expected that health system administrators and providers will apply pressure on surgeons and departments towards the wider use of DAIR and one-stage revision strategies. It is the orthopaedic surgeon’s responsibility to conduct quality studies in order to fully clarify the indications and outcomes of the different revision strategies.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:727-734. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210008