Management Of Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty Research Articles

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.

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.

Surgical treatment of infected shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review.

To investigate the best surgical management of infected shoulder arthroplasty. A literature review from 1996 to 2016 identified 15 level IV studies that met inclusion criteria. Persistent infection (PI) was considered as treatment failure. Success was regarded as the absence of symptomatic PI without necessity for further treatment. Surgical outcomes were reported according to the mean weighted Constant and Murley score (CMS) for each treatment group. Overall, 287 patients (146 males/141 females) were identified at a mean follow-up of 50.4 (range 32-99.6) months. The PI in the whole population was 11.5%. The pooled mean CMS, available for 218 patients, was 39 ± 13. Twenty-seven patients (9.4%) were treated with debridement (PI 29.6%, CMS 41 ± 12), 52 patients (18.1%) with resection arthroplasty (PI 11.5%, CMS 29 ± 16), 33 patients (11.5%) with permanent spacers (PI 6.1%, CMS 31 ± 14), 98 patients (34.2%) with two-stage revisions (PI 14.3%, CMS 42 ± 12) and 77 patients (26.8%) with one-stage revisions (PI 3.9%, CMS 49 ± 11). Debridement showed the highest PI rate (29.6%) and one-stage revisions reported the lowest PI rate (3.9%). Resection arthroplasty and spacers showed the poorest CMS when compared to the other procedures (p ≤ 0.0001). The debridement PI rate was significantly higher than almost any other procedure. CMS was significantly higher in patients undergoing revision compared to non-revision procedures (45 ± 12 vs. 35 ± 14) (p < 0.0001). One-stage revisions achieved significantly better results in terms of the PI rate compared to two-stage revisions (p = 0.0223), but not in terms of CMS. Debridement showed the highest PI rate (29.6%) and should not be recommended for the management of infected shoulder arthroplasty. Revisions reported better functional outcomes compared to non-revision procedures. The presence of a significantly lower PI rate with comparablely high mean CMS values suggests that one-stage (where technically applicable) could be superior to two-stage revisions. Unfortunately, well-designed randomized controlled trials using validated patient-based outcomes are lacking in this field. Systematic Review of level IV studies, Level IV.

Use of a Functional Antibiotic Spacer in Treating Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Management of an infected shoulder arthroplasty remains challenging. Treatment goals include resolution of the infection, improvement in pain, and restoration of function. Two-stage revision with an antibiotic spacer and subsequent revision has shown variable success in achieving these goals. The practice of using a hemiarthroplasty and coating the stem with antibiotic cement without cementing the implant to the humerus (functional antibiotic spacer) during the first stage has the potential to achieve treatment goals without the need for a second revision. The goal of this study was to examine the outcomes of a maintained functional antibiotic spacer without a second revision for the management of infected shoulder arthroplasty. Fourteen patients with an infected shoulder arthroplasty underwent implantation of a functional antibiotic spacer, extensive surgical debridement, and a minimum of 6 weeks of treatment with postoperative intravenous antibiotics. The 9 patients who elected not to undergo revision surgery were included in this analysis. Pain scores, functional outcome scores, range of motion, strength, and patient satisfaction were measured for these patients at last follow-up and compared with preoperative scores. At an average follow-up of 25 months (range, 12-48 months), significant improvements were observed in functional outcome scores, shoulder abduction, and elevation, with a trend toward improvement in pain scores. One patient was unsatisfied with the result. No recurrent infection, progressive radiolucency, or change in position of the functional antibiotic spacer was observed. A functional antibiotic spacer effectively manages the infected shoulder arthroplasty while achieving significant improvements in function and motion. Patient satisfaction was high, with a relatively low rate of conversion to second-stage revision.