Successful Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Timing on Eradication of Infection

Ideal Timing of Reimplantation in Patients with Periprosthetic Knee Infection Undergoing 2-Stage Exchange: A Diagnostic Scoring System

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated appropriate thresholds for serum biomarkers, synovial fluid white blood cell (SF-WBC) count, and synovial fluid neutrophil (polymorphonuclear leukocyte [PMN]) percentage to predict infection in a patient group who underwent definitive reimplantation after receiving a continuous course of antibiotic therapy for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). These thresholds were then used to generate a scoring system to predict recurrence (or persistence) of infection.

METHODS

The study included 153 patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 46 to 91 years) who underwent 2-stage revision for chronic knee PJI. Staphylococci were identified at baseline in 107 (70%) of the patients. After the 96-week follow-up period, 12% (19) of the 153 patients had recurrence of the PJI. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the predictive value of common serum biomarkers and SF aspiration before reimplantation, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated. Variables that were significantly different between patients with and without infection recurrence were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model. A half-integer-point scoring system was created based on the final beta coefficients.

RESULTS

Regarding the prediction of recurrent infection, a D-dimer level of >1110 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 61%, and AUC of 0.69; an SF-WBC count of >934 cells/µL showed a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.79; and an SF-PMN percentage of >52% showed a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.82. The beta coefficients were approximated to 1.5 for the D-dimer level and to 2 for the SF-WBC count and SF-PMN percentage. A total score of >2 was used to classify patients with a high risk of infection recurrence. The ability to discriminate infection recurrence was demonstrated by an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a score of >2 on our proposed scoring system based on serum biomarkers, SF-WBC count, and SF-PMN percentage should not undergo reimplantation, as they are at a high risk for recurrent PJI. Patients with a score of ≤2 can undergo definitive reimplantation with the lowest risk of recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Two-Stage Treatment of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infections With the Use of Gentamicin-Articulated Spacers: Success Rate and Predictors of Failure at the Minimum Seven-Year Follow-Up

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship rates of 2-stage treatment with gentamicin-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulated knee spacer in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection and to identify risk factors associated with failure.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study among 73 patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection after primary total knee replacement with articulated polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated spacers (Subiton, Medical Labs, Ind Argentina), performed in a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Clinical and functional assessment was performed with Knee Society Score and Western and Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify the variables that influenced the success and failure rates.

Results

We included 73 patients. There were 53 (71.3%) monomicrobial, 11 (15%) polymicrobial, and 10 (13.7%) negative cultures infections. The success and failure rates were 90.5% (n = 66) and 9.5% (n = 7), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified that age (odds ratio = 1.77; P = .039), greater erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior to the first stage (odds ratio = 1.04; P = .006), and polymicrobial infections (odds ratio = 7.32; P = .0003) were independent variables associated with failure.

Conclusions

Two-stage revision with polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated knee spacers is an effective strategy for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. Age, higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior first stage, and polymicrobial infections were independent risk factors for treatment failure.

Indications and techniques for non-articulating spacers in massive bone loss following prosthetic knee joint infection: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and alignment and provide a stable limb on which to mobilise. Spacers may be articulating or static with the gold standard spacer yet to be defined. The aims of this scoping review were to summarise the types of static spacer used to treat PJI after KR, their indications for use and early complication rates.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's "JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis" Scoping review reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2005 to 2022 for studies on the use of static spacers for PJI after KR.

RESULTS

41 studies (1230 patients/knees) were identified describing 42 static spacer constructs. Twenty-three (23/42 [54.2%]) incorporated cement augmented with metalwork, while nineteen (19/42, [45.9%]) were made of cement alone. Spacers were most frequently anchored in the diaphysis (22/42, [53.3%]), particularly in the setting of extensive bone loss (mean AORI Type = F3/T3; 11/15 studies 78.3% diaphyseal anchoring). 7.1% (79 of 1117 knees) of static spacers had a complication requiring further surgery prior to planned second stage with the most common complication being infection (86.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has summarised the large variety in static spacer constructs used for staged revision KR for PJI. Static spacers were associated with a high risk of complications and further work in this area is required to improve the quality of care in this vulnerable group.

Interval between two-stage exchanges: what is optimal and how do you know?

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the most popular option for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Determining infection eradication and optimal timing of reimplantation can be challenging. Information to allow for a truly informed evidence-based decision is scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a critical review of available evidence on the presently available tests to help determine timing of reimplantation.

RESULTS

Serology is traditionally used to follow up patients after the first stage. Despite tradition mandates waiting for normal inflammatory markers, there is actually no evidence that they correlate with persistent infection. The role of synovial fluid investigation between stages is also explored. Cultures lack sensitivity and neither differential leukocyte counts nor alternative biomarkers have proven to be accurate in identifying persistent infection with a spacer in situ. We also examined the evidence regarding the optimal time interval between resection and reimplantation and whether there is evidence to support the implementation of a two week "antibiotic holiday" prior to proceeding with reimplantation. Finally, wound healing and other important factors in this setting will be discussed.

CONCLUSION

Currently there are no accurate metrics to aid in the decision on the optimal timing for reimplantation. Decision must therefore rely on the resolution of clinical signs and down trending serological and synovial markers.

Factors Influencing the Clinical Outcomes of Two-Stage Re-Implantation in Patients With Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Introduction Infection is one of the most distressing complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), requiring a long treatment process and may negatively affect patient satisfaction. All surgeons aim to achieve infection-free survival, painless, functional, and stable knee after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with two-stage revision treatment. Many factors play a role in determining clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the factors influencing the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing two-stage revision knee arthroplasty for PJI. Methods Forty-nine patients were retrospectively evaluated. Forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Spacer types, growth rates in culture, types and amount of antibiotics added to the cement, and intervals between stages were evaluated. Pre- and post-treatment infection parameters, changes in the range of motion (ROM), clinical and functional (C&F) Knee Society Score (KSS) results, and complications were also studied. Results After a mean follow-up of 48.8 ± 16.5 months, re-infection was detected in five out of 44 patients (10.4%). No significant difference was noted regarding C&F KSS when comparing time intervals between the two stages, whether they were shorter or longer than 10 weeks. However, better ROM results were obtained in patients with less than 10 weeks between stages. The relationship between spacer type, ROM, and C&F KSS was not found to be significant. Particularly, the addition of 4g of teicoplanin to the cement shortened the time between the two stages. Conclusion C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) levels can be considered safe parameters for diagnosis, reimplantation timing, and follow-up. The use of dynamic spacers or reimplantation performed within 10 weeks after the first stage is associated with better ROM outcomes. Additionally, the addition of teicoplanin to the cement shortened the duration of antibiotic therapy.

Is long time to reimplantation a risk factor for reinfection in two-stage revision for periprosthetic infection? A systematic review of the literature

The two-stage revision arthroplasty is a common treatment option for chronic periprosthetic infection (PJI). The time to reimplantation (TTR) reported in the literature varies substantially from a few days to several hundred days. It is hypothesized that longer TTR could be associated with worse infection control after second stage. A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection in clinical studies published until January 2023. Eleven studies investigating TTR as a potential risk factor for reinfection met the inclusion criteria (ten retrospective and one prospective study, published 2012-2022). Study design and outcome measures differed notably. The cutoff points above which TTR was regarded as "long" ranged from 4 to 18 weeks. No study observed a benefit for long TTR. In all studies, similar or even better infection control was observed for short TTR. The optimal TTR, however, is not yet defined. Larger clinical studies with homogeneous patient populations and adjustment for confounding factors are needed.

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.

Are Static Spacers Superior to Articulated Spacers in the Staged Treatment of Infected Primary Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In the treatment of knee periprosthetic joint infection with a two-stage protocol, static spacers allow for the local delivery of high doses of antibiotics and help to preserve soft tissue tension. Articulated spacers were introduced to better preserve flexion after the reimplantation. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive data collection of the results of these different spacers. An in-depth search on the main clinical databases was performed concerning the studies reporting data on the topic. A total of 87 studies and 4250 spacers were included. No significant differences were found both in pooling data analysis and meta-analysis of comparative studies about infection recurrences, complications, and clinical scores. Mean active knee flexion at last follow-up after total knee reimplantation was found to be significantly higher using articulated spacers (91.6° ± 7° for static spacers vs. 100.3° ± 9.9° for articulated spacers; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis also recognized this strong significant difference (p < 0.001). This review has confirmed that articulated spacers do not appear to be inferior to static spacers regarding all clinical outcomes, while they are superior in terms of active flexion. However, the low quality of the studies and the risk for selection bias with complex patients preferentially treated with static spacers need to be accounted for.

Antibiotic Therapy in 2-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at risk for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To treat PJI, orthopaedic surgeons can perform 1-stage or 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Although 2-stage revision yields superior long-term outcomes, the optimal antibiotic therapy duration and route of administration between stages remain uncertain. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify if variations in antibiotic therapy, duration, and administration during 2-stage hip or knee revision arthroplasty affect PJI eradication rates and surgical outcome measures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify all original reports from January 2000 to June 2021 involving 2-stage revision arthroplasty to treat PJI. Studies were included if they specified antibiotic duration, an intravenous (IV) route of antibiotic administration, type of antibiotic, and 2-stage revision PJI eradication rate and had a mean or median follow-up of at least 2 years after the second-stage operation. Included studies were classified into 3 groups based on the length of IV antibiotic therapy after prosthesis explantation: prolonged IV antibiotic therapy of 4 to 6 weeks, shortened IV antibiotic therapy of ≤2 weeks, and shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy followed by 6 to 12 weeks of oral antibiotics.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Three studies utilizing a prolonged IV antibiotic therapy had PJI eradication rates of 79% to 96%. Four studies using a shortened IV antibiotic therapy showed PJI eradication rates of 88% to 100%. Finally, 2 studies utilizing a shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy with oral antibiotics had PJI eradication rates of 95% and 97%. There was no significant difference in eradication rates across IV antibiotic duration strategies, despite a diverse array of cultured microorganisms across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the numbers are small, this systematic review suggests that prolonged IV antibiotic duration, shortened IV antibiotic duration, and shortened IV antibiotic duration supplemented with oral antibiotics confer similar PJI eradication rates after hip or knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Current Insights in the Evaluation and Treatment of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty

Total knee arthroplasty is a widely successful procedure, but a small percentage of patients have a postoperative course complicated by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). PJI is a difficult problem to diagnose and to treat, and the management of PJI differs, depending on the acuity of the infection. This paper discusses the established and newer technologies developed for the diagnosis of PJI as well as different treatment considerations and surgical solutions currently available.