Midterm results of two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic shoulder infection

Abstract

BackgroundTo our knowledge, no studies have reported clinical results at a midterm follow-up after two-stage revision for periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). Our purpose was to determine the recurrent infection rate and clinical outcomes of two-stage revision for PSI at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The secondary aim was to evaluate the application of the new guidelines from the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) in 2018 for diagnosis of PSI in this cohort. MethodsWe identified 17 patients with infection after shoulder arthroplasty between 2005 and 2014 who were treated with a two-stage revision and had a minimum follow-up of 5 years (range, 5-9 years). The mean time from the involved arthroplasty to first-stage revision was 40 months. All patients were revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty at second-stage revision. Complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), visual analogue scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) score, and range of motion (ROM) were noted. Patients were retrospectively scored and categorized using the ICM 2018 diagnostic criteria. Mean patient age was 64 ± 7 years, and 65% of patients were male. ResultsA recurrent infection developed in 3 (18%) of the 17 patients. The cumulative incidence of recurrence of infection was 0% at 1 year, 6% at 2 years, and 18% at 5 years. There were 6 (36%) other complications, including 4 periprosthetic fractures, 1 spacer fracture, and 1 dislocation. Two (12%) patients had scapular notching. At latest follow-up, patients who did not have recurrent infection had a statistically and clinically meaningful improvement from preoperative to postoperative PROs, including VAS for pain, ASES score, SST score, and WOOS score, and active ROM, including abduction and forward flexion. Using the ICM 2018 criteria at first-stage revision surgery, the category of PSI for 10 (59%) patients was “definite PSI,” 4 (23%) patients was “probable PSI”, and 3 (18%) patients was “possible PSI.” ConclusionThe rate of reinfection after a two-stage revision surgery for PSI at midterm follow-up was 18%. Clinical outcomes were favorable in the patients who remained free of infection. Further prospective study of the ICM criteria as they apply to making the diagnosis of infection in these patients would be beneficial. Level of evidenceLevel IV; Case Series; Treatment Study