Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty Research Articles

Factors affecting risk of recurrence with periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe goal of treating periprosthetic infection, beside its eradication, is to avoid recurrence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impacts of increasing Infection Severity (IS) score (based on the 2018 International Committee on Orthopedic Infection Consensus statement), single-stage revision and the pathogenicity of the infective organism have on the risks of infection recurrence. MethodsA database of 790 revisions performed by a single surgeon from 2004-2020 was reviewed for patients with minimum 2-year follow-up and at least 1 positive culture and/or pathology result from that revision surgery. One hundred fifty-seven cases performed in 144 patients met inclusion criteria. Cases were then categorized by infection probability (IS score) according to the 2018 consensus statement. Forty-six of 157 (29%) cases were classified as definite/probable, 25/157 (16%) were classified as possibly infected, and 86/157 (55%) were classified as unlikely to be infected. Additionally, patients were grouped by single-stage surgery, and pathogenicity of infective organism. ResultsA recurrence in this study was classified as any patient requiring revision surgery that grew the same organism. The 86 cases in the unlikely group had a recurrence rate of 2.3%. The 25 cases in the possibly infected group had a recurrence rate of 12%. The 46 cases in the definite/probable group had a recurrence rate of 17.4%. Patients in the definite/probable group had a higher rate of recurrence than the possible and unlikely groups (p=0.009). The IS score was higher in the recurrence group than the non-recurrence group (7.5±4.3 vs 3.9±3.4; p<0.001). Overall, one-stage revision had a 5.0% recurrence rate, but of the 34 patients with an infection classification of definite/probable who underwent a one-stage revision, the recurrence rate was 5.9%. Highly virulent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) also had a recurrence rate of 30.8% compared to 4.0% and 5.9% in C. acnes and Coagulase-negative staphylococci, respectively (p=0.005). ConclusionRecurrent infection after treating a periprosthetic infection is associated with increasing severity scores as defined in 2018 consensus statement and more aggressive microorganisms. However, a single-stage surgery, even in patients with a higher IS score, did not impart a significant increased risk of recurrence.

Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 60 Years: Results of a Multicenter Study.

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty remains a significant complication. This study aimed to explore the epidemiology and risk factors of shoulder PJI in patients aged 60 and younger, analyze treatment options, and evaluate outcomes after 1-year follow-up. Methods: In this retrospective multicentric observational study, data from 1404 shoulders in patients under 60 who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty were analyzed. Patients with PJI and at least 1-year follow-up after infection treatment were included. Results: The study identified 55 shoulders with PJI, resulting in a 2.35% infection rate after primary shoulder arthroplasty in the young population. Male gender and reverse shoulder arthroplasty were risk factors for infection, while previous surgeries did not significantly contribute. The most common causative agents were Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Open washout had a 52.9% success rate for acute infections, while one-stage and two-stage revisions achieved infection control rates of 91.3% and 85.7%, respectively. Resection arthroplasty had an 81.8% success rate but poorer functional outcomes. Conclusions: PJI following shoulder arthroplasty in young patients is a significant concern. Preoperative planning should be carefully considered to minimize infection risk. Treatment options such as open washout and one-stage and two-stage revisions offer effective infection control and improved functional outcomes. Resection arthroplasty should be reserved for complex cases where reimplantation is not a viable option.

Is there value in the routine practice of discarding the incision scalpel from the surgical field to prevent deep wound contamination with Cutibacterium acnes? An update.

Cutibacterium acnes (C.Acnes) is the most common microbe implicated in periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty. This is an update on a previous pilot study where we demonstrated the persistence of C. Acnes on the skin and contamination of the scalpel used for initial skin incision despite a robust pre surgical skin prep protocol.14 METHODS: A consecutive case series of patients undergoing primary or revision anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty by a single fellowship-trained surgeon at a tertiary referral hospital from November 2019 to December 2022 was collected. The scalpel blade used for initial skin incision for all patients was swabbed with cultures being held for 21 days according to C.Acnes specific protocol. Demographic data, medical comorbidities, surgical information, culture results, and any infections were documented. 100 patients (51 males, 49 females) meeting inclusion criteria were identified (mean age 66.91, range 44-93 years). Cultures returned positive for C.Acnes in 12 patients (12%) 11/12 being male OR 13.2 (95% Cl [1.73. 194.87]). No association was found between positive culture and age, BMI, medical comorbidities or procedure type. There were no postoperative infections in this patient cohort and they will continue to be monitored for development of infection. Despite stringent pre-surgical preparation and scrub protocols a significant portion of patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty have C.Acnes in culturable quantities on their skin at the time of incision. C.Acnes contamination is much more common in male patients. These findings should be taken into consideration in regard to preventive measures such as discarding the initial scalpel and avoiding unnecessary dermal contact during the procedure.

One-stage revision for infected shoulder arthroplasty: prospective, observational study of 37 patients

Periprosthetic joint infection is a severe complication of joint replacement surgery. Thus two-stage exchange remains the gold standard, one-stage exchange is now widely recommended. We hypothesized that, for patients with chronic periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI), treatment with a one-stage exchange would be an effective approach to eradicate infection, relieve pain, and restore function to the involved shoulder. This monocenter cohort study in a Bone and Joint Infection Referral Center (11/2003-05/2020) included all patients with confirmed PSI treated by one-stage revision. Data were extracted from the prospective database, including demographics, infection characteristics, and functional evaluations (range of motion and Constant Score at admission and last follow-up). The primary outcome was the 2-year reinfection-free rate. We included 37 patients. The refection-free rate was 5%. The most commonly isolated pathogen was Cutibacterium acnes (68%), isolated alone (15 patients, 41%) or as polymicrobial infections (10 patients, 27%). The Constant Score increased significantly from 24 to 53 (P=.001). Range of motion (forward elevation, abduction) was also significantly improved after surgery. Mean active forward elevation increased significantly by 45° from 60° to 105° postoperatively (P<.001), mean abduction increased by 42° from 55° to 97° (P<.001). Results from our prospective cohort-extracted series suggest that one-stage revision is a reliable treatment with a low infection recurrence rate. Improved functional outcomes can be achieved with one-stage exchange. Our patients' overall functional results were similar to those previously reported for one-stage revision and better than those reported after two-stage exchange. Patients with multiple previous surgeries seem to have worse functional outcomes than the subgroup without surgery before the index arthroplasty. Our results and literature search findings suggest that one-stage revisions effectively eradicate PSIs, with good functional outcomes.

Outcomes after débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention for prosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasty

Patients who undergo total shoulder arthroplasty usually have excellent long-term outcomes. However, a subset of patients is diagnosed with a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision procedures and prolonged recovery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of recurrent shoulder PJI in patients undergoing débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), single-stage revision, and 2-stage revision. We also sought to compare outcomes and complications across procedures. Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients diagnosed with PJI after primary shoulder arthroplasty between January 2010 and August 2021. Patients were included if they underwent treatment with DAIR, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision. Demographic information, surgical details, complications, laboratory data, postoperative antibiotic regimen, and infectious pathogen were collected. Postoperative patient-reported outcomes were collected: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Shoulder Activity Scale, and PROMIS Upper Extremity. Chi-square, t test, and 1-way analysis of variance were used as appropriate to evaluate each factor. Sixty-five patients were included in the study, 26% treated with DAIR, 9% treated with single-stage revision, and 65% treated with 2-stage revision. There were no significant differences in patient comorbidities. Patients undergoing DAIR were diagnosed significantly earlier than those undergoing single- and 2-stage revision procedures (12.6±22.9 months vs. 49.6±48.4 vs. 25.0±26.6, P=.010). Recurrent PJI was noted in 23.1% of patients: 29.4% of DAIR patients, no single-stage patients, and 23.8% of 2-stage patients (P=.330). Patients undergoing 2-stage revision with treatment failure had a significantly higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (0.2±3.7 vs. 3.7±3.9, P=.027). There was no significant difference in patient-reported outcomes across groups. Patients undergoing treatment of shoulder PJI with DAIR did not have an increased rate of reinfection compared with single-stage and 2-stage revision procedures. Patients treated with DAIR were diagnosed with PJI significantly earlier than those undergoing single-stage and 2-stage revision procedures. There was no difference in complication rates between groups. This information adds to the body of work detailing outcomes after DAIR for shoulder PJI and provides encouraging data for use in this patient population. Future studies with a larger sample size may be conducted to further investigate specific pathogens, infection timelines, and antibiotic regimens that reduce the risk of treatment failure.

Arthroscopic tissue biopsy as a preoperative diagnostic test for periprosthetic shoulder arthroplasty infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The diagnosis of periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge. Conventional methods for evaluating periprosthetic joint infections are poor because of lower-virulence organisms affecting the shoulder. The aim of our systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative arthroscopic tissue cultures compared with tissue biopsy samples obtained at the time of revision surgery. We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies that used arthroscopy to obtain preoperative tissue cultures for the diagnosis of shoulder arthroplasty infections. Studies were excluded if they obtained non-arthroscopic tissue samples. We reported the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Culture findings from the arthroscopic biopsy samples were also compared with conventional tests of fluoroscopy-guided joint aspiration and serum inflammatory marker testing (positive erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein) within the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of the studies. Our search strategy yielded 795 potentially relevant publications; 572 underwent title and abstract screening, and 14 studies underwent full-text review, of which 7 were included in our systematic review. The studies represented a balance of shoulder arthroplasty types, including anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n=75, 38%), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (n=60, 30%), and hemiarthroplasty (n=64, 32%). There were 56 of 120 arthroscopic procedures that returned positive tissue culture findings compared with 64 of 157 positive open biopsy culture findings obtained from revision surgery. The meta-analysis total for sensitivity and specificity for all studies combined indicated that arthroscopic tissue cultures (0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.88] and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97], respectively) were superior to both aspiration (0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.48] and 0.93 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99], respectively) and a positive erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein level (0.14 [95% CI, 0.02-0.62] and 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95], respectively) in diagnosing periprosthetic shoulder infections. Our systematic review demonstrated that preoperative arthroscopic tissue biopsy used for microbiology cultures accurately predicts intraoperative culture findings obtained during revision surgery with high sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, arthroscopy appears to be superior to conventional techniques of joint aspiration and inflammatory marker testing. Therefore, arthroscopic tissue cultures may be an emerging useful tool to help guide the management of periprosthetic infections in shoulder arthroplasty.

Intraoperative Intra-articular Antibiotic Injection Reduces Infection in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Deep infection is a debilitating complication after shoulder arthroplasty. The authors hypothesized that an intra-articular, intraoperative injection of antibiotics would result in a lower infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. Before 2007, 164 patients (group A) did not receive intra-articular antibiotics. From 2007 to 2018, 1324 patients (group B) received intra-articular antibiotics. Patients received intra-articular gentamicin at the end of surgery with the addition of 1 g of cefazolin in January 2014. Records were retrospectively reviewed for comorbidities, type of surgery, and infection. The cohort that received intra-articular antibiotics was compared with the cohort that did not to determine the effect of prophylactic intra-articular antibiotic administration in preventing infection. There was 1 deep infection in the antibiotic group compared with 5 in the non-antibiotic group (P<.001). Superficial infections developed in 2 cases of patients treated with antibiotics; there were no superficial infections in patients treated without antibiotics (P=.62). One previous study evaluated intra-articular injection of antibiotics for shoulder arthroplasty and found significantly lower rates of infection with the injection of intra-articular gentamicin. In this retrospective follow-up study, the injection of intra-articular gentamicin or gentamicin and cefazolin effectively decreased rates of postoperative infection. At mean follow-up of 399 days, intra-articular antibiotics at the time of surgery resulted in significantly fewer deep infections. Given the minimal risk of adverse events and minimal cost, this is a valid method of reducing infections in total shoulder arthroplasty. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(5):310-314.].

Two-stage revision for periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty: an institutional experience

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection involving shoulder arthroplasty is often treated with a 2-stage approach, involving resection and placement of an antibiotic cement spacer followed by staged reimplantation after eradication of the infection. While there are several studies examining the near-term clinical course and outcomes of this sequence, there is still ambiguity surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection, including the nature of the infection as well as treatment failure rates, and we hypothesized that trends may be observed in an institutional cohort of periprosthetic shoulder arthroplasty infections. MethodsA retrospective review of all shoulder arthroplasty cases performed at a tertiary care health system between May 2013 and September 2021 was conducted, revealing 32 patients who underwent a 2-stage treatment for periprosthetic infection, including reimplantation. Cases were reviewed for basic demographic factors, preoperative inflammatory markers, intraoperative frozen specimens and cultured organisms, and antibiotic regimen. Inpatient length of stay, discharge location, and unplanned 90-day readmissions were recorded, as well as subsequent clinical course including further post-reimplantation revisions. ResultsAll 32 cases underwent reimplantation, with a median time of 3.3 months (14.3 weeks) between stages and a post-reimplantation median follow-up of 0.6 years (minimum 1 year: 40%). Twenty-four (75%) cases required no further revision surgery, and in no cases was there a recurrence of deep infection or repeat 2-stage treatment after reimplantation. Four patients subsequently underwent aseptic revision, 3 sustained a periprosthetic fracture, and 1 underwent an irrigation and débridement for superficial cellulitis. At spacer placement, 17 cases (57%) were culture-negative infections, while 6 cases (20%) grew Cutibacterium acnes. Intraoperative frozen sections were taken in 17 cases, but only 3 (18%) were positive for acute inflammation. ConclusionTwo-stage treatment for periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty appears to have a high efficacy in preventing recurrence of deep infection, but patients should be counseled regarding its high all-cause revision rate following reimplantation. Further, many infections can be culture-negative with no intraoperative evidence of acute inflammation.

Reverse rhino sign as a radiological sign of low-grade infected reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Low-grade infections following shoulder surgery are difficult to diagnose. Recently, curved-shaped bony spurs, further mentioned "reverse rhino signs" because of its shape, growing inferior on the glenoid were noticed on X-rays of patients with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and a Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) infection. This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the reverse rhino sign as a radiological marker for detecting low-grade shoulder infections in RSA. A diagnostic study was performed including patients who underwent revision surgery of an RSA with perioperative cultures taken. Blinded radiographic evaluation was performed by two orthopedic surgeons for presence of rhino signs, humeral osteophytes, and notching. Efficacy measures of the reverse rhino sign for detecting low-grade infections were determined. Furthermore, results were stratified for notching and gender. Thirty-two revised RSA patients had a low-grade infection and 36 had no infection. Seventeen (53%) patients with infection had a reverse rhino sign present, compared to 6 (17%) in the non-infection group. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of the reverse rhino sign were, respectively, 53%, 83%, 74%, and 67%. These measures changed to 68%, 77%, 72%, and 74% for patients without notching and to 47%, 100%, 100%, and 8% for males. In the absence of a reverse rhino sign in RSA patients, a low-grade shoulder infection is unlikely. Hence, the reverse rhino sign can be used to rule in a low-grade shoulder infection, especially in males and in the absence of notching. Low-grade infections should be considered in patients with unexplained persistent shoulder complaints after RSA placement, especially when a rhino sign is present. For these patients, we advise to perform mini-open biopsy for cultures. Diagnostic level IV.

Applying the new shoulder periprosthetic joint infection consensus definition to a case series of revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures to assess concordance between consensus definitions and diagnoses

As the number of shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed rises yearly, so does the number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). In this study, PJI consensus definitions were compared and contrasted in a series of revision shoulder arthroplasty cases preoperatively diagnosed as PJI. Understanding the variations in these definitions may guide PJI diagnoses, thereby improving treatment strategies and patient outcomes in the setting of infected shoulder arthroplasty. All revision shoulder arthroplasty cases with preoperatively-diagnosed or suspected PJI (determined by procedure code) performed from 2008 – 2017 at a single institution by a single surgeon (fellowship-trained in shoulder and elbow surgery) were retrospectively evaluated. Following Institutional Review Board approval, patient demographic, treatment, and laboratory data were collected. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS; 2011) and International Consensus Meeting on Orthopaedic Infections (ICM; 2013, 2018 Revision, 2018 Shoulder) definitions of PJI were applied to the data. Statistical analysis assessed significant associations between culture status and PJI classification algorithm criteria. Thirty-seven patients with suspected PJI were identified; 24 culture-positive (CP) and 13 culture-negative (CN). In this series, the 2018 ICM Shoulder definition for definite infection was met at lower rates than all other definitions (CP; 71% vs. 96%; CN; 62% vs. 69%). 2018 ICM Shoulder major criteria showed stronger correlations to 2011 MSIS, 2013 ICM, and 2018 ICM Revision major criteria when “gross intra-articular pus” was excluded than when pus was included as a major criterion. 2018 ICM Revision cases determined to be infected were very strongly, positively, correlated with the 2018 ICM Shoulder cases determined to have definite or probable infections (ρ = 1.000, P < .0001). Additionally, cases classified as “definite” or “probable” infections with the 2018 ICM Shoulder definition were more likely to require reoperation for suspected recurrent infection after completion of antibiotic therapy. In this series, the 2018 ICM Shoulder definition and previous PJI definitions classified cases as PJI at similar rates. However, the inclusion of a third major criterion of “gross intra-articular pus” weakened the correlation with prior definitions. Level IV; Case Series.

Creation of a Custom-Length, Humeral Antibiotic Cement Spacer for Use in Treatment of Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder is a challenging clinical situation to manage owing to the fastidious organisms often present and delayed clinical presentation. While several treatment options have been described, the mainstay of treatment remains a staged revision with the use of a humeral antibiotic cement spacer. Such spacers are commercially available or can be made by hand. When an extended humeral osteotomy is required to remove a well-fixed long stem humeral component, it may be advantageous to place an antibiotic spacer with a stem length approximately as long as the hardware being removed. This technique demonstrates creation of a custom length, humeral antibiotic cement spacer for use in treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection.

Ten-day culture incubation time can accurately detect bacterial infection in periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundCutibacterium acnes is the most commonly isolated organism involved in periprosthetic shoulder infections. C acnes has traditionally been difficult to isolate, and much debate exists over appropriate culture methods. Recently, our institution initiated a 10-day culture method using a Brucella blood agar medium to enhance anaerobic growth specifically for C acnes in shoulder specimens.MethodsA retrospective review of shoulder cultures from 2014-2017 of patients undergoing workup for possible infected shoulder arthroplasty was performed. Cultures were obtained in patients either preoperatively or intraoperatively at the time of revision. Presence of infection was determined based on at least 1 positive culture and treatment with either prolonged antibiotics, placement of an antibiotic spacer at the time of revision, or repeat surgical débridement.ResultsThe records of 85 patients with 136 cultures were reviewed. Eighty-two patients had full records with at least 1-year clinical follow-up. Fifty-eight cultures were positive, with C acnes as the most commonly recovered organism (57% of positive cultures). Clinical follow-up of patients with negative cultures found no incidence of missed periprosthetic infection.ConclusionsUse of a 10-day culture incubation method to enhance anaerobic bacterial growth is able to accurately detect periprosthetic infection in the shoulder including those related to C acnes. Our results suggest that by adopting more uniform culture methods, a shorter culture incubation time may be adequate. Ultimately, prospective studies with rigorous microbiologic methods are needed to best understand the clinical significance of unexpected positive bacterial cultures in shoulder arthroplasty.

Management of infected shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of treatment strategies

The study purpose was to determine whether 2-stage revision procedures result in superior outcomes and whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty produced superior outcomes to hemiarthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation. Our prospectively collected database was retrospectively reviewed for all surgically treated infected shoulder arthroplasties between 2006 and 2014. We included 47 patients in this study: 27 underwent a 2-stage revision, and 20 were treated with an antibiotic spacer as definitive treatment. Preoperative laboratory results, intraoperative cultures and pathology findings, recurrence of infection, complications, and outcome measures were compared between treatment groups. A recurrent infection developed in 3 patients in the antibiotic spacer group and 2 patients in the 2-stage revision group (P = .25). A total of 20 procedure-related complications and 11 medical complications occurred between the 2 groups; however, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. The 2-stage group had statistically significantly better Constant scores (58.1 vs. 33.3, P = .04) and elevation (94.4° vs. 48.6°, P = .02) than the antibiotic spacer group. Subanalysis of the 2-stage revision group showed that reverse total shoulder arthroplasties had statistically superior Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California at Los Angeles, and Constant scores; elevation; and abduction compared with hemiarthroplasties or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. Two-stage revision procedures and use of an antibiotic spacer for definitive management of periprosthetic shoulder infections appear to be similar and effective in eradicating infections. Two-stage revisions using a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation generatesuperior range of motion and functional outcome scores.

The management of infected shoulder arthroplasty by two-stage revision.

There remains no gold standard management for deep shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This case series aims to present our experience of two-stage revision arthroplasty, including eradication of infection and reoperation rates. We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for shoulder PJI between 2006 and 2015. Cases were confirmed using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. TSA removal, debridement and irrigation preceded antibiotic-loaded cement spacer insertion and a minimum of six weeks intravenous antibiotics. Reimplantation was performed as a second stage following a negative aspirate. Twenty-eight patients underwent a first stage procedure (mean age 69 years; 16 male, 12 female). Propionibacterium acnes, Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the commonest microorganisms cultured. Five cases had mixed growths and six cases provided no growth. Three patients did not proceed to a second stage. Twenty-five patients underwent reimplantation (mean interval 6.7 months), with 80% remaining infection-free (mean follow-up 38.3 months). Managing complex and late presentation shoulder PJI with two-stage revision is associated with high rates of infection eradication (80%). In the absence of a management consensus, our experience supports two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradicating infection in this complex patient group.

Infection periprothetique de l’épaule : révision en deux temps versus spacer antibiotique articulé permanent

IntroductionPeriprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) represent a serious complication following shoulder arthroplasty. No consensus exists regarding the optimal option. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to compare the outcomes of 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty and those of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation with regards to eradication of the infection, improvement of pain and shoulder function. Materials and methods30 patients treated for an infected shoulder arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed after a mean follow-up of 8 years (range, 2–10 years). Nineteen underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation and 11 underwent 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 68.8 years. Assessment included Constant-Murley score, visual analog scale pain score, objective examination, patient subjective satisfaction score as well as standard radiographs. ResultsAt the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to preoperative values (p<0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. No statistically significant differences were reported between the two groups concerning Constant-Murley and VAS scores, while average forward flexion and abduction were significantly higher in patients undergoing 2-stage revision surgery. ConclusionsBoth surgical procedures provided infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes. Functional results were superior in patients treated with revision shoulder prosthesis, although a higher rate of complication was reported in this cohort of patients, thus suggesting the use of permanent spacer in high-risk or low-demanding elderly patients. Level of evidenceIII, Retrospective case-control study.

Two-stage revision shoulder prosthesis vs. permanent articulating antibiotic spacer in the treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infections

IntroductionPeriprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) represent a serious complication following shoulder arthroplasty. No consensus exists regarding the optimal option. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to compare the outcomes of 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty and those of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation with regards to eradication of the infection, improvement of pain and shoulder function. Materials and methodsThirty patients treated for an infected shoulder arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed after a mean follow-up of 8 years (range, 2–10 years). Nineteen underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation and 11 underwent 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 68.8 years. Assessment included Constant-Murley score, visual analog scale pain score, objective examination, patient subjective satisfaction score as well as standard radiographs. ResultsAt the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to preoperative values (p<0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. No statistically significant differences were reported between the two groups concerning Constant-Murley and VAS scores, while average forward flexion and abduction were significantly higher in patients undergoing 2-stage revision surgery. ConclusionsBoth surgical procedures provided infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes. Functional results were superior in patients treated with revision shoulder prosthesis, although a higher rate of complication was reported in this cohort of patients, thus suggesting the use of permanent spacer in high-risk or low-demanding elderly patients. Level of evidenceIII, Retrospective case-control study.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts Review.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) is an emerging pathology which requires many improvements in diagnosis and treatment to obtain a satisfying success rate. Different approaches have been described. This article summarizes current concepts of diagnostic process and main treatments described in the literature.

Scoping review: Diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasty.

The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence regarding periprosthetic shoulder infection to inform development of evidence and consensus-based guidelines. A search of Medline, Embase and PubMed was performed; two authors screened the results independently for inclusion. Totally 88 studies were included. Incidence of periprosthetic shoulder infection ranged from 0.7% to 7%. The most common organisms to cause periprosthetic shoulder infection were Propionibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Male gender and younger age are the most reported risk factors. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein and serum/synovial biomarkers had limited diagnostic accuracy. Thirty-nine studies reported the outcome of surgical management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Eradication rates vary from 54% to 100% for debridement procedures; 66-100% for permanent spacers; 50-100% following single-stage revision; 60-100% following two-stage revision; and 66-100% following resection arthroplasty. There is wide heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes of studies are often contradictory and due to issues with methodology and small sample sizes the optimal pathways for diagnosis and management cannot be determined from this review. Future research should be based on larger cohorts and randomised trials where feasible to provide more valid research for guiding future treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to present the results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection and to determine the rate of positive cultures in the second-stage surgery in shoulder arthroplasty and its meaning.MethodsTwenty-one patients (22 cement spacers) treated with two-stage surgery because of a shoulder arthroplasty infection were included. In the second stage, the cement spacer was sent for sonication and at least four tissue cultures were obtained. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, sensitivity of the microorganisms to the antibiotic loaded in the cement spacer in the first revision surgery, time elapsed since an antibiotic was last administered until second revision procedure, functional shoulder status at last follow-up, and any complication were recorded.ResultsThree out of the 22 cases (13.6%) presented positive cultures at the second-stage surgery. Periprosthetic tissue culturing detected the three positive culture cases in the second stage while the cement spacer sonication detected two and missed one. Considering periprosthetic tissue culturing as the standard procedure, the cement spacer sonication showed sensitivity at 66.6%. Recurrent infection over time was considered present in 3 patients; two of them had been previously diagnosed with a positive culture at the second stage (66.6%).ConclusionsA good number of patients (13.6%) present a positive culture at the second stage of the two-stage surgical procedure for infected shoulder arthroplasty, and those patients seem to be at high risk for recurrent infection. Periprosthetic tissue cultures have a higher sensitivity to detecting a positive culture at the second stage than cement spacer sonication.

Management of periprosthetic shoulder infections with the use of a permanent articulating antibiotic spacer.

Management of periprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) still remains challenging. We conducted a retrospective case study to assess the outcomes of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation in a cohort of elderly, low-demanding patients. We hypothesized that in patients with low functional demands seeking pain relief with chronic PSIs, treatment with a definitive articulating antibiotic spacer would lead to satisfying results concerning eradication of the infection, improvement of pain, and improving shoulder function. 19 patients underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation for the treatment of an infected shoulder arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 70.2years. Patients were assessed pre-operatively with functional assessment including Constant-Murley score, and objective examination comprehending ROM, visual analog scale pain score, and patient subjective satisfaction (excellent, good, satisfied, or unsatisfied) score. Radiographs were taken to examine signs of loosening, and change in implant positioning. At the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to pre-operative values (p < 0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. In one case, glenoid osteolysis was reported, which did not affect the clinical outcome. In selected elderly patients with low functional demands seeking pain relief with infected shoulder arthroplasty, definitive management with a cement spacer is a viable treatment option that helps in eradicating shoulder infection and brings satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Case series, Level IV.