Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.
Highlights
This article is an open access articlePrimary shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is an expanding field in treating proximal humeral fractures and degenerative shoulder disorders, including osteoarthritis and cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) [1]
Treatment ranges from exclusive antibiotic treatment to surgical revision with irrigation and debridement or staged prosthesis exchange up to definitive resection arthroplasty [14,15,16], whereas most studies recommend removal of the implant for chronic infections [8,17,18]
Infection control can be achieved by resection arthroplasty [13,19,20,21] or permanent spacer retention [22]
Summary
This article is an open access articlePrimary shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is an expanding field in treating proximal humeral fractures and degenerative shoulder disorders, including osteoarthritis and cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) [1]. Apart from mechanical disorders, periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are serious complications associated with prolonged hospitalization and long-term functional constraints [4]. Male gender and young age at primary implantation were identified as the most important influencing factors [6,7]. It is reported that the incidence of PJI following primary SA ranges from 0 to 4% [8,9]. Treatment ranges from exclusive antibiotic treatment to surgical revision with irrigation and debridement or staged prosthesis exchange up to definitive resection arthroplasty [14,15,16], whereas most studies recommend removal of the implant for chronic infections [8,17,18]. Infection control can be achieved by resection arthroplasty [13,19,20,21] or permanent spacer retention [22]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
