The outcomes of acute periprosthetic joint infection following unicompartmental knee replacement managed with early debridement, Antibiotics, and implant retention

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an uncommon, yet serious, complication. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Debridement-Antibiotics-and-Implant-Retention (DAIR) in this setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of DAIR for acute UKR PJI.

METHOD

Between 2006 and 2019, 5195 UKR were performed at our institution. Over this period, sixteen patients underwent DAIR for early, acute PJI. All patients met MSIS PJI diagnostic criteria. The median age at DAIR was 67 years (range 40-73) and 12 patients were male (75.0%). The median time to DAIR was 24 days (range 6-60). Patients were followed up for a median of 6.5 years (range1.4-10.5) following DAIR.

RESULTS

0.3% (16/5195) of UKR in our institution had a DAIR within 3 months. 15 of 16 patients (93.8%) were culture positive, with the most common organism MSSA (n = 8, 50.0%). Patients were treated with an organism-specific intravenous antibiotic regime for a median of 6 weeks, followed by oral antibiotics for a median duration of 6 months. The Kaplan-Meier survivor estimate for revision for PJI was 57% (95%CI: 28-78%) at five years, and survivor estimate for all cause revision 52% (95%CI: 25-74%).The median Oxford Knee Score for patients with a viable implant at final follow-up was 45 points (range 39-46).

CONCLUSION

Early, acute PJI after UKR is rare. DAIR had a moderate success rate, with infection-free survivorship of 57% at 5 years. Those successfully treated with DAIR had excellent functional outcome and implant survival.

Modular Proximal Body Exchange for Re-revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Rarely Utilized and Moderately Successful

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered stems (MFTSs) are commonly used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and provide the option of exchanging the proximal modular portion to address future surgical problems without complete femoral revision. We are unaware of any data documenting the frequencies, indications, and outcomes of modular proximal body exchange in re-revision THA.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2019, we performed 57 modular proximal body exchanges among 8,079 revision THAs at our institution. Indications and outcomes were documented at a mean follow-up of 3.4 years (range, 0 to 12.8).

RESULTS

Modular proximal body exchange was performed on 47 of 1375 (3%) of MFTSs implanted. The indications for all 57 modular proximal body exchanges performed during the study period were dislocation in 30 (53%), partial resection for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 13 (23%), modular junction failure in 8 (14%), surgical exposure in 4 (7%), and concurrently with trochanteric osteotomy nonunion fixation in 2 (4%). At final follow-up, subsequent re-revisions occurred in 10 of 30 (33%) of modular proximal body exchanges indicated for dislocation and in 5 of 13 of those indicated for PJI. One modular junction subsequently fractured after modular proximal body exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Modular proximal body exchange of a MFTS is an uncommon procedure most often performed for treatment of hip dislocation or PJI. It is moderately successful with approximately one-third of cases requiring subsequent re-revision. This procedure is often performed with modular component exchange alone, but can also be helpful to facilitate complex acetabular exposure. These data provide useful information to surgeons and patients undergoing this procedure.

The concordance between preoperative aspiration and intraoperative synovial fluid culture results: intraoperative synovial fluid re-cultures are necessary whether the preoperative aspiration culture is positive or not

Aims

Preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative cultures play pivotal roles in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and pathogen identification. But the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative synovial fluid culture remains unknown. We aim to determine (1) the discordance between preoperative and intraoperative synovial fluid (SF) culture and. (2) compared to intraoperative synovial fluid cultures, the sensitivity of preoperative aspiration fluid culture. Then the following question is tried to be answered: Are intraoperative synovial fluid re-cultures necessary if the preoperative aspiration culture is positive?

Materials and methods

Between 2015 and 2019, 187 PJI patients managed with surgeries were included in this study. Compared to intraoperative synovial fluid culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of preoperative aspiration culture were calculated. Then, the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative SF culture was analyzed.

Results

The sensitivity of preoperative aspiration culture was 81.29% compared to intraoperative synovial fluid cultures. Concordance was identified in 147 PJI (78.61%) patients and culture discordance occurred in 40 patients (21.39%). In these discordant PJI patients, 24 patients (60%) were polymicrobial and no intraoperative synovial fluid culture growth was found in 16 PJI cases (40%). Preoperative monomicrobial staphylococcus results had a sensitivity of and a specificity of 80.43% and 83.16%, respectively. Preoperative polymicrobial results had the lowest sensitivity.

Conclusions

The intraoperative synovial fluid re-cultures are necessary if the preoperative aspiration culture is positive and the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative synovial fluid culture should be noted especially when Streptococcus spp. and more than one pathogen was revealed by preoperative aspiration culture.

Level of evidence: Level III.

The evolution from the two stage to the one stage procedure for biofilm based periprosthetic joint infections (PJI)

A definitive consensus on the optimal limb salvage protocol for infected total joints does not currently exist. Popular, is the two-stage revision which calls for the use of an antibiotic loaded spacer followed by a delayed exchange. Our question is whether single-stage revisions for biofilm based infected arthroplasties results in comparable or possibly better patient outcomes as compared to those reported for two-stage revisions. We retrospectively reviewed 500 cases of one-stage revisions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) using dual setup with radical debridement, definitive reconstruction with antibiotic loaded cement and implantation of antibiotic calcium sulfate pellets between the years 2005-2017. The revisions included 351 total knees, 122 hips, 2 hip-femur-knees, 13 shoulders, 10 elbows, and 2 shoulder-humerus-elbows. The patient population had a mean follow-up of 60 months (range: 24 months-14 years) and mean patient age of 61 years old, consisting of 250 males and 250 females. Patient comorbidities were reviewed, classified using McPherson's staging for PJIs, and compared to the Cierny & Mader classification system. Successful treatment was defined as a joint without recurrence of infection, for a minimum of 2 years, and limb preservation. Based on our findings, one-stage revision of PJIs demonstrates at least as good an infection eradication rate as two-stage revision: 88% vs 85% respectively.