2-stage Exchange Arthroplasty Research Articles

Regional Periprosthetic Joint Infection Centers: The Time Has Come for a Paradigm Change in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare, yet devastating complication with high mortality rates, unpredictable treatment outcomes, and high costs. The purpose of this study was to determine 90-day and 1-year mortality rates at a specialized PJI center, assess the impact of delayed referral to a PJI center on outcomes, and determine the cost of PJI treatment prior to referral to a PJI center. MethodsA review of our institution’s PJI registry was performed to identify patients who had a chronic PJI treated with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty at our PJI Center from 2017 to 2021. Patients not referred from an external location were excluded. Mortality at 90 days and 1 year was collected. The date of infection diagnosis until the date of referral was recorded. Outcomes were documented as failure of treatment at the final clinical follow-up. The number and type of prior infection treatments were documented for each patient. The estimated cost was calculated using established PJI literature. ResultsThere were 172 patients (182 joints) who met inclusion criteria during this timeframe. The 90-day and 1-year mortality rates were 0 and 3.9%, respectively. There was a higher failure rate in patients referred >90 days after the diagnosis of chronic PJI (23 versus 11%, P = 0.031). The total cost of PJI treatment prior to referral for this group of patients was $6.9 million. ConclusionsImplementation of a specialized PJI referral center leads to lower mortality rates, improved outcomes, and decreased cost for the health-care system.

The Use of Oral Antibiotics After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review.

» There is conflicting and insufficient evidence that extended oral antibiotic (EOA) therapy prevents infection in high-risk patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA), limiting recommendation for or against the practice.» In the case of aseptic revision TJA, the evidence is also conflicting and limited by underlying confounders, preventing recommendation for use of EOA.» There is fair evidence that use of EOA after debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis prolongs infection-free survival, but randomized controlled trials are needed. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that patients undergoing 2-stage revision should receive a period of suppressive oral antibiotics after the second stage.» The optimal duration of EOA in primary TJA, aseptic revision, and debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis is unknown. However, there is strong evidence that 3 months of EOA suppression may be appropriate after reimplantation as part of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty.» Complications secondary to EOA are reported to be between 0% and 13.7%, yet are inconsistently reported and poorly defined. The risks associated with antibiotic use, including development of antimicrobial resistance, must be weighed against a possible decrease in infection rate.

Should We Use Rifampicin in Periprosthetic Joint Infections Caused by Staphylococci When the Implant Has Been Exchanged? A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.

Previous studies demonstrated the efficacy of a rifampicin-based regimen in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) treated with surgical debridement. However, evidence is lacking to support the use of rifampicin in cases where the implant is exchanged during revision. We included all consecutive cases of staphylococcal PJIs treated from January 2013 to December 2018 with revision surgery in this international, retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society diagnostic criteria. A relapse or reinfection during follow-up, the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy, the need for implant removal, and PJI-related death were defined as clinical failure. Cases without reimplantation or with follow-up <12 months were excluded. A total of 375 cases were included in the final analysis, including 124 1-stage exchanges (33.1%) and 251 2-stage exchanges (66.9%). Of those, 101 cases failed (26.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in failure of patients receiving rifampicin (22.5%, 42/187) and those not receiving rifampicin (31.4%, 59/188; P = .051). A subanalysis of chronic PJIs treated by 2-stage exchange arthroplasty demonstrated a lower failure rate in cases treated with rifampicin (15%) compared with the no-rifampicin group (35.5%; P = .005). In this subgroup, the use of rifampicin and an antibiotic holiday of >2 weeks were independent predictors of clinical success (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88; and OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.90; respectively). Combination treatment with rifampicin increases treatment success in patients with chronic staphylococcal PJI treated with 2-stage exchange arthroplasty.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

Impact of Antibiotic-Impregnated Spacer Design in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip Infection.

Although 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, consisting of temporary insertion of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer (AICS), is considered the standard of care for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), a consensus on the AICS design has not yet been established. Ceramic-on-polyethylene AICSs (Poly-AICS) are theorized to cause less pain and better function than cement-on-bone AICS (CemB-AICS) but use non-antibiotic-impregnated components that may harbor bacteria. This study evaluates the impact of spacer design on infection-free survivorship following THA reimplantation as well as pain and function during the interim AICS stage. A retrospective review was performed of all cases of THA PJI treated with either Poly-AICS or CemB-AICS at a single high-volume academic center. Data were collected until the final follow-up after THA reimplantation with an average follow-up duration of 2.6 years. The primary outcome was infection-free survivorship after the final reimplantation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid use, time to ambulation, length of stay, complications, and discharge disposition. A total of 99 cases (67 CemB-AICS; 32 Poly-AICS) were included. There were no baseline differences between the 2 groups. There were no differences in infection-free survivorship after reimplantation in survivorship curve comparisons (P= .122) and no differences in postoperative inpatient pain scores, opioid use, length of stay, time to ambulation, complications, or discharge disposition during the AICS stage. Patients with THA PJI treated with Poly-AICS did not have worse infection-related outcomes despite the use of non-antibiotic-impregnated components but also did not appear to have less pain or improved function during the early AICS stage.

Is 2-Stage Septic Revision Worth the Money? A Cost-Utility Analysis of a 1-Stage Versus 2-Stage Septic Revision of Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTwo-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for the management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, but several studies have demonstrated that 1-stage exchange is as effective as 2-stage exchange. This study aimed to support decision-making via an economic evaluation of 1-stage compared to 2-stage exchange for total knee arthroplasty septic revision in patients who did not have compelling indication PJI (ie, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, multiorganism, systemic sepsis, comorbidities, culture negative, resistant organism, and immunocompromised) to undergo a 2-stage exchange. MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov cohort model from the health care provider perspective using Australia data. One-stage septic knee revisions were compared with 2-stage exchange procedures for chronic PJI using a patient-lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), whereas costs were presented in 2020 Australian dollars. Sensitivity analyses, population expected values of perfect information, and the perfect information for parameters (EVPPI) were assessed to estimate the opportunity costs surrounding the decision made at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2-stage exchange compared with 1-stage exchange was $231,000 per QALY, with 98.5% of the probabilistic sensitivity simulations above the willingness-to-pay threshold. The population expected value of perfect information was $882,000, whereas the expected value of perfect information for parameters for the “cost parameters” was $207,000. ConclusionThe adoption of 1-stage septic knee revision is the optimal choice for patients who have a PJI and who do not have a compelling need for a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. One-stage exchange for PJI should be advocated in patients who meet the eligibility criteria.

Risk Factors for Treatment Failure in Patients Who Have Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treated With Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty as Well as Their Fate

BackgroundTwo-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the gold standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a scarcity of research investigating the major risk factors for infection recurrence and the prognosis after infection recurrence. MethodsThis study included 203 patients who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty between June 22, 2010 and January 24, 2017. The need of reoperation for infection-related or PJI-related mortality was considered treatment failure. Participant age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, culture results, length of hospital stay, cause of treatment failure, operative procedure, and fate were analyzed. ResultsFifty-three patients experienced treatment failure (26.1%). Mean follow-up was 63 months (range, 26-103). Based on the multivariate analyses, risk factors for treatment failure included men and positive intraoperative culture during reimplantation. Recurrent infection was most commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus (32.1%, 17/53), and new microorganisms caused recurrent infection in 34 of 53 (64.2%) patients. In 44 patients who had treatment failure, debridement, antibiotic therapy, irrigation, and retention of prosthesis (DAIR) performed within 6 months of reimplantation and at <3 weeks from symptom onset resulted in a significantly higher success rate than the use of other DAIR protocols (P = .031). ConclusionMen and positive intraoperative culture are major risk factors for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty failure in patients who have knee PJI. Recurrent infection in these patients is usually caused by new microorganisms. DAIR within 6 months of reimplantation and at <3 weeks from symptom onset results in good outcomes in these patients.

Two-stage strategy in end-stage hip periprosthetic joint infection: utility of industrially prefabricated custom-made antibiotic spacers.

Use of prefabricated mobile spacers in end-stage cases of hip periprosthetic joint infection (HPJI) is hindered when large bone defects exist. In such cases, prefabricated custom-made antibiotic spacers (P-CMAS) offer an alternative. Such spacers are individually designed according to the size and anatomical characteristics of the bone defect. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the use of such patient-specific spacers in a two-stage strategy to treat end-stage HPJI cases, and to report on clinical outcomes. A retrospective study identified all patients with end-stage HPJIs from January 2015 through December 2019, treated using a P-CMAS. Primary outcome: infection eradication rate. Secondary outcomes: spacer-related complications and patient satisfaction. Minimum follow-up: 12 months after the second-stage surgery. A total of 7 end-stage cases (mean of 6.7 previous surgical procedures) were included. Mean bone defect size was 191.57 (range 47-304) mm. Polymicrobial infection was detected in 42.86% of these cases. During the spacer stage there were no periprosthetic fractures, spacer dislocations or breakages, nor spacer-drug-related complications. All patients proceeded with the second stage uneventfully, with an average time between stages of 178 (range 119-326) days. In 5 cases a total femur arthroplasty was the reconstructive procedure performed. After a mean follow-up of 27.29 (range 14-49) months the infection was clinically eradicated in all patients, despite their difficult-to-treat scenarios. Industrially custom-made spacers offer an effective and safe option in performing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in cases of end-stage HPJI with extensive bone defects.

Hospital Costs for Unsuccessful Two-Stage Revisions for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Although 2-stage exchange arthroplasty is the preferred surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, little is known about the risk of complications between stages, mortality, and the economic burden of unsuccessful 2-stage procedures. The 2015-2019 Medicare 100% inpatient sample was used to identify 2-stage PJI revisions in total hip and knee arthroplasty patients using procedural codes. We used the Fine and Gray sub-distribution adaptation of the conventional Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the probability of completing the second stage of the 2-stage PJI infection treatment, accounting for death as a competing risk. Hospital costs were estimated from the hospital charges using "cost-to-charge" ratios from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A total of 5094 total hip arthroplasty and 13,062 total knee arthroplasty patients had an index revision for PJI during the study period. In the first 12 months following the first-stage explantation, the likelihood of completing a second-stage PJI revision was 43.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.7-44.5) for hips and 47.9% (95% CI 47.0-48.8) for knees. Following explantation, 1-year patient survival rates for hip and knee patients were 87.4% (95% CI 85.8-88.9) and 91.4% (95% CI 90.6-92.2), respectively. The median additional cost for hospitalizations between stages was $23,582 and $20,965 per patient for hips and knees, respectively. Hospital volume, Northeast or Midwest region, and younger age were associated with reduced PJI costs (P < .05). Although viewed as the most preferred, the 2-stage revision strategy for PJI had less than a 50% chance of successful completion within the first year, and was associated with high mortality rates and substantial costs for treatment failure.

Acute Kidney Injury When Treating Periprosthetic Joint Infections After Total Knee Arthroplasties with Antibiotic-Loaded Spacers: Incidence, Risks, and Outcomes.

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with a high-dose antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) spacer and intravenous or oral antibiotics is the most common method of managing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, little is known about the contemporary incidence, the risk factors, and the outcomes of acute kidney injuries (AKIs) in this cohort. We identified 424 patients who had been treated with 455 ALBC spacers after resection of a PJI following a primary TKA from 2000 to 2017. The mean age at resection was 67 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 33 kg/m2, 47% of the patients were women, and 15% had preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD). The spacers (87% nonarticulating) contained a mean of 8 g of vancomycin and 9 g of an aminoglycoside per construct (in situ for a mean of 11 weeks). Eighty-six spacers also had amphotericin B (mean, 412 mg). All of the patients were concomitantly treated with systemic antibiotics for a mean of 6 weeks. An AKI was defined as a creatinine level of ≥1.5 times the baseline or an increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL within any 48-hour period. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2 to 17 years). Fifty-four AKIs occurred in 52 (14%) of the 359 patients without preexisting CKD versus 32 AKIs in 29 (45%) of the 65 patients with CKD (odds ratio [OR], 5; p = 0.0001); none required acute dialysis. Overall, when the vancomycin concentration or aminoglycoside concentration was >3.6 g/batch of cement, the risk of AKI increased (OR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively; p = 0.02 for both). Hypertension (β = 0.17; p = 0.002), perioperative hypovolemia (β = 0.28; p = 0.0001), and acute atrial fibrillation (β = 0.13; p = 0.009) were independent predictors for AKI in patients without preexisting CKD. At the last follow-up, 8 patients who had sustained an AKI had progressed to CKD, 4 of whom received dialysis. In our study, the largest series to date that we are aware of regarding this issue, AKI occurred in 14% of patients with normal renal function at baseline, and 2% developed CKD after undergoing a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for a PJI after TKA. However, the risk of AKI was fivefold greater in those with preexisting CKD. The causes of acute renal blood flow impairment were independent predictors for AKI. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Randomized Trial of Static and Articulating Spacers for Treatment of the Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare perioperative and postoperative variables between static and articulating spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicating total hip arthroplasty (THA). MethodsFifty-two patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as part of a 2-stage exchange for PJI at 3 centers were randomized to either a static (n = 23) or articulating spacer (n = 29). The primary endpoint was operative time of the second-stage reimplantation and power analysis determined that 22 patients per cohort were necessary to detect a 20-minute difference. Seven patients were lost to follow-up, 4 were never reimplanted, and one died before discharge after reimplantation. Forty patients were followed for a mean 3.2 years (range 2.0-7.1). ResultsThere were no differences in operative time at second-stage reimplantation (143 minutes static vs 145 minutes articulating, P = .499). Length of hospital stay was longer in the static cohort after stage 1 (8.6 vs 5.4 days, P = .006) and stage 2 (6.3 vs 3.6 days, P < .001). Although it did not reach statistical significance with the numbers available for study, nearly twice as many patients in the static cohort were discharged to an extended care facility after stage 1 (65% vs 30%, P = .056). ConclusionThis randomized trial demonstrated that the outcomes of static and articulating spacers are similar in the treatment of THA PJI undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. The significantly longer length of hospital stay associated with the use of static spacers may have important economic implications for the health care system.

Static Spacer Construction Using Carbon Fiber Rods in 2-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Knee Infection: A Novel Technique and Indications

Background: Traditionally, 2-stage exchange arthroplasty is preferred to eradicate chronic periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty. However, for cases with significant bone destruction and/or soft tissue damage, the risk of knee instability increases with this technique, leading to a number of complications such as tibiofemoral dislocation, wound healing complications, extensor mechanism rupture, or failure of extensor mechanism repair. Intramedullary fixator rods reinforcing static spacers have been utilized to provide improved stability, but persistent infections were still prevalent. Antibiotic static spacers with intramedullary fixator rods coated with antibiotic cement can lower these reinfection rates. Surgical Technique: The surgical sequence requires removal of the infected prosthesis and placement of a carbon fiber rod and nonarticulating antibiotic spacer. This remains in situ for ~6 to 12 weeks while the patient receives systemic antibiotic treatment. Following confirmation of successful treatment, the antibiotic spacer and carbon fiber rod are removed, and revision arthroplasty is performed in a standard manner. Results: After a minimum of 1-year follow-up, no recurrent infections were diagnosed, 1 patient suffered a complication requiring expedited antibiotic spacer removal, and 1 patient expired in this cohort. Conclusions: This technique represents an effective method of providing stability of the knee and delivering adequate antibiosis in patients with knee periprosthetic joint infections in the setting of extensor mechanism disruption and severe bone loss.

Customized intraoperatively molded articulating cement spacers for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects.

The use of articulating spacers, molded or prefabricated, becomes difficult in case of severe bone losses. Our idea was to customize the Molded Articulating Cement Spacers with cement stem extensions and if necessary metaphyseal cement augmentations in order to use them also in case of major bone defects. Fifty-four knees in fifty-three patients undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were divided in 4 groups, treated with 4 different types of spacers (Static, articulating molded, customized molded and metal on Poly) and evaluated in terms of Range of Motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), patients' related outcome measures (PROMs), rate of complication and ease of the surgical exposure at the time of reimplantation. At final follow-up, no statistical differences in terms of ROM and KSS were found between the articulating groups. Static Spacers showed statistically significant lower results both in terms of ROM and KSS comparing to the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). Considering PROMs, statistically better outcomes for all articulating spacers were found both when spacer was in place and at final follow-up comparing to the static spacers group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the 3 articulating spacers groups. Radiographic analysis did not show signs of loosening, migration or major bone loss. Customized Intraoperatively Molded Articulating Cement Spacers are a safe solution for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects and may provide a better quality of life for patients when in place comparing to static ones.

The Double DAIR: A 2-Stage Debridement with Prosthesis-Retention Protocol for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Debridement and implant retention (DAIR) has variable success as a treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with generally poor outcomes reported in the literature1. Because of the unacceptably high failure rate of DAIR, we implemented a 2-stage debridement protocol that includes the use of high-dose antibiotic beads between stages for the treatment of acute PJI. In 2 previous studies, with an average follow-up of 3.5 years in each study, we reported overall infection-control rates of 87% and 90%2,3. Following exposure of the joint, cultures are obtained, and all modular components are removed, scrubbed, and soaked in an antiseptic solution. A thorough irrigation and debridement with complete synovectomy is performed, followed by temporary reinsertion of the original modular parts. High-dose antibiotic cement beads are inserted into the joint, and the joint is closed. Approximately 5 to 6 days later, a second debridement is performed, the beads are removed, and the new modular, sterile components are implanted. The patient is placed on a course of intravenous and, later, oral antibiotics, in addition to a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy.One-stage DAIR.One-stage exchange arthroplasty.Two-stage exchange arthroplasty.Resection arthroplasty.Amputation. The treatment of acute PJI has historically consisted of a single irrigation and debridement, with exchange of modular parts and retention of the components, followed by intravenous antibiotic therapy. Despite having lower rates of patient morbidity compared with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, this more traditional procedure also has a higher rate of failure, with reported rates as high as 60% to 84%4-12. The utility of component retention continues to be a topic of debate13. Alternatives to component retention include both 1- and 2-stage exchange procedures. Although these modalities offer potentially higher rates of infection control, they are associated with substantial patient morbidity, particularly in patients with well-fixed implants14-16. Furthermore, exchange procedures may result in substantial iatrogenic bone loss, which can be problematic in revision total joint arthroplasty procedures, in which bone stock may already be limited. The double-DAIR protocol offers infection-control rates that are comparable with those of component-exchange procedures, but with the lower patient morbidity associated with component-retention procedures. Furthermore, the double-DAIR procedure provides the added benefit of retaining important bone stock. The success rate for the double-DAIR procedure has been reproducible, with infection-control rates of 87% and 90% reported in 2 studies from a single cohort at our institution2,3. These rates represent a substantial improvement compared with a single irrigation and debridement1, and are on par with those reported for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty procedures17-21. The infection-control rates of the double-DAIR procedure did not significantly vary depending on whether infection occurred following a total knee or total hip arthroplasty. However, not surprisingly, patients who underwent debridement following a revision procedure had a lower rate of success (77.1% successful infection control) compared with patients debrided following a primary procedure (93.8% successful infection control). We could not demonstrate an association with organism and success or failure of treatment.Although not significant, there was a trend toward an association between the time from symptom onset to initial treatment and infection control (p = 0.07)2. Patients with successful infection control underwent the initial debridement an average of 6.2 days after symptom onset, compared with 10.7 days in patients in whom treatment had failed. Several other studies have demonstrated that successful infection control is associated with earlier initial irrigation and debridement22-27. We strongly support that, in the setting of confirmed acute PJI, prompt initiation of treatment optimizes the chances for successful infection control. Thorough debridement is key to successful infection control of infection.Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe, and we recommend its use28-31.Extended oral antibiotics following debridement with component retention can increase infection-free survivorship32.

The Fate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Megaprosthesis Reconstruction.

Background:A megaprosthesis may be used for reconstruction in patients with massive bone loss or a periprosthetic fracture. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may occur after a megaprosthesis reconstruction and may pose a major challenge. The outcomes of managing PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis is relatively unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course and outcomes of PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis in place.Methods:From a total of 219 patients who underwent megaprosthesis replacement for non-oncologic conditions, 38 (17.4%) developed subsequent PJI. A retrospective review of the medical record was performed to ascertain the course of the PJI and treatment outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the survival function, and the log-rank test was used to assess differences in outcome measures.Results:The surgical management of 33 patients with PJI included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) (82%), consisting of DAIR with modular component exchange (19 patients) and DAIR without component exchange (8 patients); 2-stage exchange arthroplasty (9%); resection arthroplasty (6%); and a single-stage revision arthroplasty (3%). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis demonstrated that the overall survival rate was 65.1% at 2 years. The mortality rate was 15%, with many patients undergoing salvage procedures including amputation (18%), arthrodesis (6%), and resection arthroplasty (6%).Conclusions:The rate of PJI after megaprosthesis reconstruction, 17% in this study, appears to be very high. The management of PJI in these patients is challenging, with 1 of 3 patients undergoing failed treatment. Despite the limited options available, DAIR seems to be an appropriate treatment strategy for some of these patients. Further data on a larger cohort are needed to assess the success of various surgical procedures and predictors of failure in this challenging patient population.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Characterizing Femoral and Acetabular Bone Loss in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

BackgroundThe process of infection and multiple procedure-related factors in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty may lead to severe bone loss that can complicate subsequent reimplantation. The primary purpose of this study is to quantitatively characterize the extent of bone loss on the femoral and acetabular side prior to reimplantation during 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection. MethodsThis retrospective case series includes 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of infected total hip replacement. Demographic, clinical, and surgical information, and complications during the 2-stage process were collected on all patients. The radiographs of all patients were reviewed prior to first-stage explantation and post-reimplantation or latest follow-up to characterize bone loss using the Paprosky classification systems. ResultsOf the 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange, 10 patients (21%) were not reimplanted. Following explant and spacer placement, 32 patients (68%) experienced progressive femoral bone loss, and 20 (43%) experienced progressive acetabular bone loss. Patients who experienced progression of both femoral and acetabular bone (14, 30%) had a longer time between resection and reimplantation (164 ± 128 vs 88 ± 26 days, P = .03). A reimplantation time of greater than 90 days was associated with an increased risk of combined bone loss progression (15% vs 53%, P = .01). For patients who underwent reimplantation (79%), increased bone loss led to high rates of diaphyseal femoral fixation (97%) and revision acetabular components (38%). ConclusionIncreased time to reimplantation in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic hip infections is associated with a high rate of acetabular and femoral bone loss, and increased complexity of reimplantation.

Difficult-to-treat pathogens significantly reduce infection resolution in periprosthetic joint infections

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication after arthroplasty. Our hypothesis was that PJI caused by difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens has a worse outcome compared with non-DTT PJI.Routine clinical data on 77 consecutive patients with confirmed PJI treated with 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were placed in DTT and non-DTT PJI groups and analyzed. The main outcome variable was that the patient was definitively free of infection after 2 years.We found definitive infection resolution in 31 patients in the DTT group (68.9%) and 28 patients (87.5%) in the non-DTT group (P < 0.05). The necessity for revision surgery until assumed resolution of infection was significantly more frequent in the DTT group with 4.72 ± 3.03 operations versus 2.41 ± 3.02 operations in the non-DTT group (P < 0.05).PJI caused by DTT bacteria is associated with significantly higher numbers of revision operations and significantly inferior definitive infection resolution.

Greater Knee Soft Tissue Thickness Predisposes Patients to Subsequent Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundAlthough obesity is a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the role of soft tissue thickness (STT) at the surgical site has not been well studied. This study examined if increased STT in the medial and anterior aspects of the knee are independent risk factors for PJI. MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on 206 patients who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI from 2000 to 2015. They were matched 1:3 to a control group of primary, noninfected TKA patients with minimum 2 years infection-free survival by age, gender, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, date of surgery, and body mass index (BMI). Two blinded orthopedic surgeons measured the medial STT from the medial aspect of the knee at the level of the joint line on an anteroposterior radiograph, and anterior STT 8 cm above the joint line on a lateral radiograph from the skin to the quadriceps tendon. ResultsIncreased STT was significantly associated with a higher risk for PJI. The mean anterior STT was 29.74 ± 13.76 mm in the PJI group and 24.88 ± 9.76 mm in the control group. The mean medial STT was 42.42 ± 14.66 mm for PJI and 37.27 ± 12.51 mm for control. Both STT measurements were significantly higher in PJI cases with BMI <30 kg/m2 vs control patients with BMI <30 kg/m2. ConclusionAnterior and medial knee STT was an independent risk factor for PJI after primary TKA and represents a simple radiographic method to assess postoperative infection risk. Excess adipose tissue around the surgical site can predispose patients to PJI after TKA regardless of BMI.

Is Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Improving Over Time?

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the outcomes of treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are improving with time. This study evaluated trends in PJI treatment outcomes in the hip and knee following 2-stage exchange arthroplasty and irrigation and debridement (I&D) over the last 17 years. MethodsWe reviewed 550 two-stage exchange arthroplasties and 194 I&Ds between 2000 and 2016 at our institution. Treatment success was defined according to the Delphi consensus criteria and Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was generated to determine time trends in the outcome of PJI treatment with the year of surgery included as both a continuous covariate (per 1-year increase) and a categorical covariate (2000-2010 or 2011-2016). ResultsThe survivorship of I&D, 2-stage revision, and the total combined cohort were comparable between 2000-2010 and 2011-2016 groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the year of surgery was not associated with treatment failure following an I&D or 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, and neither did it increase the risk of non-reimplantation. When year of surgery was considered as a categorical variable, there remained no significant difference in treatment failure following an I&D or 2-stage exchange arthroplasty between the 2000-2010 cohort and 2011-2016 cohort. ConclusionDespite the increasing clinical focus, research advances, and growing literature relating to PJI, we were unable to detect any substantial improvement in the treatment success rates of PJI at our institution over the 17 years examined in this study. Novel treatments and techniques are certainly needed as current and prior strategies remain far from optimal.

Increased Postoperative Glucose Variability Is Associated With Adverse Outcome Following Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundGlucose variability in the postoperative period has been associated with increased rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary arthroplasty. It is unknown how postoperative glucose control affects outcome of surgical treatment of PJI patients. We hypothesized that postoperative glucose variability adversely affects the outcome of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of 665 patients with PJI of the knee and hip who underwent 2-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2000 to 2017. Of them, 341 PJIs with a minimum follow-up of 1 year, and either a minimum of 2 glucose values per day or greater than 3 overall during the reimplantation were included. Glucose variability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation. Adverse outcomes included treatment failure according to the Delphi consensuses criteria, reinfection, reoperation, and mortality. A subgroup analysis was performed based on patients with or without diabetes. ResultsGlucose variability following reimplantation was associated with higher treatment failure, reinfection, and reoperation. Adjusted analysis indicated that for every standard deviation (15%) increase in the coefficient of variation, the risks of treatment failure, reinfection, and reoperation increased by 27%, 31%, and 26%. Although stratifying patients with (n = 81) or without diabetes (n = 260), these associations remained robust in nondiabetic patients, but not in diabetic patients. ConclusionHigher glucose variability is associated with increased risks of treatment failure, reinfection, and reoperation after 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in PJI patients. Compared to diabetic patients, nondiabetic patients have a higher association between glucose variability and poor outcomes. Reducing adverse outcomes may be achieved with close monitoring and strict postoperative glucose control.