One-stage Exchange Arthroplasty Research Articles

Do one-stage indications predict success following two-stage arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection?

Introduction: The 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) proposed criteria for one-stage exchange arthroplasty in treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our study aimed to determine what proportion of PJI patients met the 2018 ICM criteria and how this affected infection-free survivorship for patients. Methods: All chronic PJI patients treated with two-stage exchange within our institution between 2017-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included cases met 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI and had a 2-year minimum follow-up. Treatment success was defined as Tier 1A in the 2019 MSIS working group definition. ICM one-stage criteria included non-immunocompromised host, absence of sepsis, adequate soft tissue for closure, known preoperative pathogen, and susceptibility. Immunocompromised host was analyzed as two separate definitions. Kaplan-Meier survivorship, Cox regression, and univariate analyses were performed. Results: A total of 293 chronic PJI patients were included. Overall, treatment failure occurred in (21.8 %) patients. Only 13 % () met ICM criteria definition no.1 for one-stage exchange; 12 % () met definition no.2. In both definitions, infection-free survivorship at 2years did not differ between patients who met and did not meet criteria (). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses demonstrated that the only variable predicting treatment failure was knee joint involvement (). Conclusions: We found that a very limited number of chronic PJI patients were suitable for a one-stage exchange. Furthermore, the supposition that healthier hosts with known pathogens (the basis of the ICM criteria) yield better PJI treatment outcomes was not observed. These results justify the ongoing multicenter randomized control trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage treatment for chronic PJI.

Intramedullary Positive Tissue Culture Increases the Risk of Reinfection Following One-Stage Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundIntraoperative acquisition of representative tissue samples is essential during revision arthroplasty of the infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While the number of intraoperative tissue samples needed to identify the organism is well described in the literature, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding the location of positive intraoperative samples and their correlation to postoperative outcomes. MethodsThere were forty-two patients who had septic failure following one-stage revision TKA for periprosthetic joint infection who were identified between January 2009 and December 2017. They were matched to a control group of patients who had successful one-stage revision TKA without septic failure. The location of positive intraoperative tissue samples was categorized as: 1) soft tissue; 2) interface between bone and prosthesis; and 3) intramedullary (IM). Chi-square, Student’s t-, and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U-tests were used as appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of septic failure. ResultsWeight > 100 kilograms (P = .033), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < .001), and positive IM cultures (P < .001) were associated with a higher risk of reinfection after one-stage revision TKA. A positive IM sample carried a nearly five-fold increase in odds of reinfection (odds ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.85 to 12.78, P = .001). ConclusionsA positive IM culture sample is significantly associated with septic failure after one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. Patients who had positive IM cultures may benefit from longer postoperative antibiotic therapy for the treatment of one-stage exchange arthroplasty to minimize the risk of reinfection.

The Use of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Two-Stage Revision of Septic Hip Arthroplasties: A Double-Center Retrospective Study

(1) Background: intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) devices can provide a valuable contribution to patient blood management. An infection of the surgical site presents a formal contraindication to the use of ICS. To date, there is no recommendation for the use of ICS in the context of reimplantation in two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty. (2) Methods: at two hospitals of maximum endoprosthetic care, a retrospective evaluation of patients who had received ICS blood during reimplantation of hip arthroplasties was performed. Patients’ and surgical characteristics, intraoperative cultures, and the occurrence of septic complications in the short- and long-term follow-up were recorded. (3) Results: 144 patients were included. Detection of positive cultures during reimplantation occurred in 13 cases. A total of 127 patients showed no complication, 8 patients showed a non-specific septic complication, 6 patients a local persistence of infection, and 3 patients a possible bloodstream-associated infection. No significant correlation was found between the occurrence of complications and the detection of positive intraoperative cultures. (4) Conclusions: no clustering of septic complications due to the use of ICS during reimplantation was found. In the risk-benefit analysis, we considered the use of ICS during reimplantation to be indicated in terms of patient blood management, while the safety of the procedure during septic first-stage resection arthroplasty or septic one-stage exchange arthroplasty was not investigated. Given the paucity of comparative literature, further studies are needed on ideal patient blood management in the setting of septic revision arthroplasty.

The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection.

Despite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. Between January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation= 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system. At the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n= 11), compared with 28% (n= 14) in group 1, 29% (n= 7) in group 3, and 26% (n= 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P= .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P= .107). Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4). The results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.

One-Stage Hip Revision Arthroplasty Using Megaprosthesis in Severe Bone Loss of The Proximal Femur Due to Radiological Diffuse Osteomyelitis

Managing substantial proximal and/or distal femoral bone defects is one of the biggest challenges in chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection. Most authors use two-stage arthroplasty with a temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for the management of these patients. In this study, we show our experience with one-stage exchange arthroplasty in managing severe bone defects due to radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis. Two patients were included in the study. They showed radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis, and they were treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty using megaprosthesis. Diffuse osteomyelitis was confirmed in both cases; in one case, the histology was compatible with osteomyelitis, and the other case had a positive culture identified in a bone sample. At a minimum of a four-year follow-up, the patients did not reveal any clinical, radiological or laboratory signs of infection. In conclusion, one-stage exchange arthroplasty and megaprosthesis is an option for the treatment of chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection associated with radiological-diffuse proximal femoral osteomyelitis.

Intra-wound vancomycin powder for the eradication of periprosthetic joint infection after debridement and implant exchange: experimental study in a rat model

BackgroundIntra-wound vancomycin powder (VP) has been used in clinical practice to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary knee/hip arthroplasty. The role of intra-wound VP in the setting of debridement and implant exchange after PJI remains undefined. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of intra-wound VP in the control of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection after debridement and implant exchange.MethodsPJI modeling by knee prosthesis implantation and MRSA inoculation, debridement and implant exchange were performed in Wistar rats successively to mimic the one-stage exchange arthroplasty of PJI patients. Two weeks of systemic vancomycin (SV) or/and intraoperative intra-wound VP of single dosage were applied after revision surgery.ResultsNo post-surgery deaths, incision complications and signs of drug toxicity were observed. The microbial counts of SV or intra-wound VP group were significantly reduced compared with the control group, while bacteria were still detected on the bone, soft-tissue and prosthesis. The elimination of bacterial counts, along with improvement of tissue inflammation and serum inflammatory markers, were observed in the rats with SV plus intra-wound VP. Serum levels of vancomycin in all groups were lower than that of causing nephrotoxicity, while no statistic difference was observed in the serum biochemical marker among the groups.ConclusionsIntra-wound VP is effective after debridement and implant exchange in our current rat PJI model. Neither SV nor intra-wound VP alone could eradicate the bacteria within a two-weeks treatment course, while SV plus intra-wound VP could eliminate the MRSA infection, without notable hepatic or renal toxicity and any incision complications.

Reconstruction following periprosthetic joint infection: cemented or uncemented

: Cemented and cementless reconstruction techniques have been widely adopted in primary and aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Many variables influence a surgeon’s decision to adopt a particular fixation strategy, and there is no clear consensus on the optimal approach. The literature on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has clearly shown the importance of utilizing cement in the first stage of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty in the form of an antibiotic delivery device or temporary spacer. However, very little has been established regarding the importance of fixation method (cemented versus cementless) at the time of definitive replantation and whether this plays a role in the successful eradication of PJI. For the hip, cementless fixation at reimplantation is still the standard of care given modern modular, fluted tapered stems that have high success in the setting of severe bone defects. Hybrid fixation, or cemented femoral components used with uncemented acetabular components, can also be performed when treating PJI especially when performing one-stage exchange arthroplasty, since the antibiotic cement can be used as a delivery device. For knee reimplantation, components are either inserted fully cemented or in a hybrid fashion, where cement is applied to the articular and metaphyseal portions of the bone that is supported by long diaphyseal engaging stems. Cemented stems enable the stress imparted by bone loss to be distributed along the entire length of the construct and can also support reconstructions that may require higher levels of constraint. The objectives of this review are to discuss fixation strategies available to surgeons at the time of the second stage procedure, and to discuss their implications in the success or failure of infection management.

Diagnosis and management of infected arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreadful complications after THA and TKA. Though prevention is of utmost importance in PJI management, the last decade has seen many remarkable developments in PJI diagnosis, including the introduction of several standardized PJI diagnostic definitions and biomarkers. Depending on the specific clinical situation, a myriad of treatment options for PJI are offered. Our review aims to summarize the pertinent information on PJI diagnosis and synthesize literature on the different treatment methods currently used in clinical practice. One of the most accepted PJI diagnostic definitions was developed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2011, later modified in the 2013 International Consensus Meeting (ICM). After promising results from studies, alpha-defensins and D-dimer were recently incorporated into the 2018 ICM PJI definition. The management choices for PJI include irrigation and debridement (DAIR), one-stage exchange arthroplasty, or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, to name a few. While two-stage revision has traditionally been the treatment of choice in the United States, there has been a growing body of evidence framing one-stage revision as a comparable choice. One-stage revision should be offered in patients meeting strict selection criteria: no sinus tract, proper soft tissue available for wound closure, appropriate bone stock, a favorable identifiable organism with encouraging antibiotic sensitivities (for cement and oral suppression later), and robust immunological status. DAIR can be considered in case of early infections with sensitive infecting organisms. Patients with multiple unsuccessful revisions or those who refuse further surgical intervention for PJI can be offered antibiotic suppression. If nothing seems to work, salvage procedures (resection arthroplasty and arthrodesis) are available as a last resort. Further research is encouraged to improve on diagnostic capabilities and develop evidence on the best treatment of choice for PJI.

An Alternative One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty Technique: For the Chronic Infected Total Hip.

BackgroundThere are various algorithms for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI). Currently, a two-stage hip exchange is considered the “gold standard” of care for treatment of chronic hip PJIs. However, there has been recent debate whether a one- or two-stage exchange offers the correct treatment. One-stage exchange arthroplasty has particularly gained interest due to less morbidity, mortality, and functional impairment.MethodsIn a retrospective case series, the outcome of patients with chronic hip PJIs treated with our one-stage exchange arthroplasty was analyzed. Between January 2015 and January 2020, eight patients underwent a one-stage exchange hip arthroplasty by a single surgeon at a single institution for a chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA). Original diagnosis of PJI was made in accordance with the 2011 version of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. The femoral stem was cemented with antibiotic-impregnated cement, and the polyethylene acetabular liner was cemented directly onto the acetabular bone with antibiotic-impregnated cement.ResultsOf the eight patients, three were female and five were male with a mean age of 70.5 years (SD 11.2, range 53-87). Six patients (75%) had infection eradication with retention of a stable implant and no additional surgery at a mean follow-up of 35.7 months (range 17-50). One patient (12.5%) underwent closed reduction for a dislocated THA at one month; however, this patient remained infection-free at the most recent follow-up of 41 months. One patient (12.5%) who was the oldest patient (87 years) died 18 days postoperatively. Overall, all living patients (87.5%) retained their one-stage exchange THA. One patient (12.5%, CI 95% 0.3-52.7) required additional surgery in the form of a closed reduction and zero patients (0.0%, CI 95% 0.0-36.9) required additional open surgery. ConclusionSingle-stage exchange arthroplasty with an antibiotic-impregnated cemented femoral stem and antibiotic-impregnated cemented polyethylene acetabular liner may be a useful option for the treatment of chronic hip PJIs. Our case series provides evidence that infection eradication and function preservation are possible using our one-stage exchange arthroplasty technique in a chronically infected THA. However, a multi-center study with randomization is necessary to further validate our results.

One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Fistulizing Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: An Effective Strategy.

Background: Prosthetic hip infection (PHI) is a disastrous scenario after an arthroplasty. International guidelines contraindicate one-stage exchange arthroplasty for fistulizing chronic prosthetic hip infection (FCPHI), nevertheless few surgical teams, mostly from Europe, support one stage procedure for this indication.Questions/Purposes: Analysis of infection recurrence and implant failure of a series of FCPHIs treated with one stage arthroplasty.Patients and Methods: Sixty-six FCPHIs treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty were prospectively followed up at least 2 years. Clinical, radiological and bacteriological signs suggestive of reinfection were sought, as well as implant failures and PHI related deaths.Results: Thirty-four females and thirty-two males with median age of 69.5 years [61–77] and BMI of 26 kg/m2 [22-31] were included. Fistulae were productive in 50 patients (76%). Staphylococcus was responsible for 45% of PHI and 21% were polymicrobial. Twenty-nine patients (44%) received preoperative antibiotic therapy. After a median 60-month follow-up [35–82], 3 patients (4.5%) presented reinfection (two new infections, one relapse) and 3 patients experienced implant failure (1 femoral fracture, 1 stem breakage, 1 recurrent dislocation). One death was related to PHI. After a minimum of 2 years, the infection control rate was of 95.3% (±0.02).Conclusion: One-stage exchange arthroplasty for FCPHIs showed a good infection control rate similar to that of non-fistulizing PHI. Systematic preoperative microbiological documentation with joint aspiration and, in some specific cases, the use of preoperative antibiotic therapy are among the optimizations accounting for the success of the one-stage arthroplasty. In light of these results, and those of other studies, international recommendations could evolve.Level of Evidence: Descriptive therapeutic prospective cohort study. Level of evidence: IV.

Editorial Comment: 2019 Musculoskeletal Infection Society Proceedings

Editorial Comment: 2019 Musculoskeletal Infection Society Proceedings

Minocycline Combined with Vancomycin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcal Prosthetic Joint Infection Managed with Exchange Arthroplasty.

Introduction: Treatment of methicillin-resistant (MR) staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remains a matter of discussion, with vancomycin-rifampin combination therapy being the preferred treatment for DAIR and one-stage exchange arthroplasty strategies. This study analyzes the outcomes of patients with chronic methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal PJIs treated with vancomycin-minocycline combination therapy.Methods: This prospective, single center cohort study included all chronic MR coagulase-negative staphylococcal PJIs (01/2004-12/2014) treated with exchange arthroplasty and at least 4 weeks of minocycline-vancomycin. The following endpoints were considered: reinfection including relapse (same microorganism) and a new infection (different microorganism) and PJI-related deaths. Their outcomes were compared with PJIs treated with rifampin-vancomycin during the same period.Results: Thirty-four patients (median age, 69 years) with 22 hip and 12 knee arthroplasty infections were included. Sixteen (47%) had previously been managed in another center. Median vancomycin MIC of strains was 3 mg/L. Nineteen underwent one-stage, 15 two-stage exchange arthroplasty. After a median [IQR] follow-up of 43 [26-68] months, 2 patients relapsed and 6 developed a new PJI. Compared to 36 rifampin-vancomycin treated PJIs, relapse- or reinfection-free survival rates didn't differ, but more new infections developed in the minocycline group (6 vs 3; P 0.3).Conclusions: Minocycline-vancomycin combination therapy for chronic MR coagulase-negative staphylococcal PJIs seems to be an interesting therapeutic alternative.

Diagnosis and Management of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Fungal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication because it can be difficult to diagnose, manage, and eradicate. Fungal PJI treatment requires a systematic approach. Increased awareness is essential when patients with painful arthroplasties present with immunosuppression, significant comorbidities, multiple surgeries, and history of drug use. Every suspected fungal PJI should be promptly diagnosed using readily available serum and synovial fluid markers. Surgical management involves débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, one-stage exchange arthroplasty, prosthetic articulating spacers, and two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Because mycotic infections develop robust biofilms, the utility of débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention and one-stage revisions seem limited. A thorough irrigation and débridement is essential to decrease infection burden. Adjunctive local and systemic antifungal therapy is critical, although the agent choice and duration should be tailored appropriately. Future high-quality studies are needed to develop standardized guidelines for the management of fungal PJI.

Prothèse de hanche infectée : le point de vue du chirurgien

An infected hip prosthesis is a serious complication. In addition to the various clinical presentations, the diagnosis is not always clear and the therapeutic strategies contrast conservative treatments by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention with non-conservative treatments requiring an exchange arthroplasty. Joint aspiration confirms the diagnosis of infection and determines the germ's sensitivity that guides peri-operative antibiotic therapy. The surgical indication must be based on a pragmatic classification in order to avoid inappropriate intervention. The irrigation and debridement, attractive for his simplicity, remains recommended in case of acute infection, but it does not provide the same success rate than one-stage exchange arthroplasty, whose contraindications are increasingly more relative. In the absence of effective multidisciplinary approach or in a complex situation, the infected patient should be referred to a referral center for complex osteoarticular infection.

Risk Factors for Failure After 1-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

One-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of periprosthetic joint infection was introduced at our institution. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors of failure after periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty treated with 1-stage exchange. Ninety-one patients who underwent failed treatment following 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty due to periprosthetic joint infection from January 2008 to December 2017 were included. From the same period, we randomly selected a 1:1 matched control group without a subsequent revision surgical procedure. Bivariate analyses, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors, as well as logistic regression, were performed to identify risk factors for failure. Bivariate analysis yielded 10 predictors (variables with significance at p < 0.05) for failure involving re-revision for any reason and 11 predictors for failure involving re-revision for reinfection. The binary logistic regression model revealed the following risk factors for re-revision for any reason: history of a 1-stage exchange for infection (odds ratio [OR], 26.706 [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.770 to 123.606]; p < 0.001), history of a 2-stage exchange (OR, 3.948 [95% CI, 1.869 to 8.339]; p < 0.001), and isolation of enterococci (OR, 16.925 [95% CI, 2.033 to 140.872]; p = 0.009). The risk factors for reinfection in the binary logistic regression analysis were history of 1-stage or 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, isolation of enterococci, and isolation of streptococci (OR, 6.025 [95% CI, 1.470 to 24.701]; p = 0.013). We identified several risk factors of failure after 1-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection, most of which were not related to the patient comorbidities. Among them, previous exchange due to periprosthetic joint infection and the isolation of Enterococcus or Streptococcus species were associated with a higher risk of failure. Besides a multidisciplinary approach, being aware of the identified risk factors when evaluating patients with periprosthetic joint infection could lead to better outcomes. Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Haematogenous prosthetic knee infections: Prospective cohort study of 58 patients

BackgroundProsthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare (incidence, 0.15% to 0.9%) but serious complication of knee arthroplasty. Haematogenous PJI of the knee (KhPJI) which accounts for 10% of cases, has been less studied than PJI due to other mechanisms. The primary objective of this study in patients with KhPJI of the knee was to determine the 2-year infection eradication failure rate after either exchange arthroplasty or arthrotomy/synovectomy/irrigation (ASI), combined with prolonged peri-operative antibiotic therapy, at a referral centre for complex osteo-articular infections. HypothesisASI within 2 weeks after symptom onset and one-stage exchange arthroplasty produce similar 2-year success rates in patients with KhPJI of the knee. Material and MethodsA prospective observational cohort study was performed in patients managed for PJI of the knee between 2003 and 2015. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of a septic event or of KhPJI -related death during a minimum follow-up of 2 years. ResultsOf 265 patients with PJI after total knee arthroplasty, 58 (22.1%) had KhPJI with onset more than 3 months after the last arthroplasty procedure and were included in the study. Among them, one-third had immune deficiencies. The most common causative organisms were streptococci (n=25, 43%) and Staphylococcusaureus (n=20, 34%). The primary focus of infection was identified in only 64% of patients and was most often cutaneous (n=19, 33%) or dental (n=11, 19%). A septic event or KhPJI-related death occurred in 5/34 (15%) patients after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and 6/19 (32%) patients after ASI within 15 days after symptom onset (p=0.03). Patient characteristics, type of prosthesis, and causative organism were not significantly associated with failure to eradicate the infection. ConclusionASI carried a high failure rate despite being performed within 15 days after symptom onset. One-stage exchange arthroplasty seems to be the best surgical option, particularly as the exact time of symptom onset may be difficult to determine. Identifying and eradicating the primary focus of infection is crucial. Level of evidenceII, low-powered prospective cohort study.

Low-Virulence Organisms and Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Biofilm Considerations of These Organisms.

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a critical review of peer-reviewed literature over the last 5years related to low virulent organisms associated with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We evaluated the most common organisms, the diagnostic challenges, and the novel tools available in the perioperative workup of PJI as well as the current understanding of how biofilm potentiates the indolent clinical presentation and explore a possible shift in the surgical management of these patients. Biofilm actively prevents macrophage phagocytosis by suppressing proinflammatory activity through the recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Given the appropriate host and organism conditions, increased utilization of one-stage exchange arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of these low virulent infections may be on the rise. Biomarkers and molecular techniques offer encouraging results to diagnose low virulent organisms and future research focused on the disruption of biofilm may ultimately give rise to improved treatment strategies.

What’s New in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Orthopedic Prostheses-Related Infections

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the leading cause of failure in prosthetic joint surgery regardless the implantation site, causing an important burden to hospitals and society. Diagnosis is challenging, as there is lack of a gold standard test. When it is diagnosed within 30 days of onset or if the etiology is hematogenous with either a susceptible or non-virulent microorganism, the recommended surgical management option is debridement and irrigation, followed with antimicrobial treatment in order to preserve the device, with different reported success rates. In those cases of delayed and late onset presentation, there are two treatment possibilities: (a) Two-stage exchange arthroplasty, the most common surgical procedure for the management of PJI. Once prosthesis is removed it is followed by pathogen-specific antimicrobial treatment. A period of 2–4 weeks without antimicrobial before reimplantation procedure is suggested. (b) One-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered in case of a known microorganism that is susceptible with effective antimicrobial options and lack of sepsis. In terms of antimicrobial treatment, length of intravenous antibiotics is at surgeon’s discretion because there is not a standard recommendation. Switching from intravenous to oral antimicrobial treatment reduces the hospital length of stay and health-care expenditures. Oral antimicrobial treatment length recommendation is variable, which can be from 2 to 6 weeks to 3–6 months. Suppressive antimicrobials for a long-term are an option when prostheses retention is decided because there is a high surgical risk, poor functional outcomes, and patient preferences. PJIs are ideally treated in referral hospitals with an experienced multidisciplinary team.

One-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty: A Surgical Technique Update

BackgroundStandard surgical treatment for a periprosthetic knee infection has been based on a staged surgical technique, in order to assure infection eradication prior to implantation of a new prosthesis. MethodsIn this article, we discuss our surgical technique in undertaking a single-stage exchange of a chronic knee periprosthetic infection. ResultsThis technique, which is based on the fundamental principles of controlling infection, preventing recurrence, and restoring function, has been shown to deliver high success rates. ConclusionAs demonstrated, when undertaken under appropriate circumstances, a single-stage exchange combined with local and systemic antibiotic delivery can result in infection eradication comparable to a 2-staged exchange.

Candida Prosthetic Joint Infection. A Review of Treatment Methods.

Fungal microorganisms are still a rare cause of bone and joint infections. We report a new case of knee prosthetic joint infection due to Candida albicans in a patient with a previous two-stage right knee arthroplasty for septic arthritis due to S. epidermidis occurred several months ago. Moreover, the treatment in 76 cases of Candida prosthetic joint infection has been discussed. Forty patients were female and mean age at diagnosis was 65.7 (± SD 18) yrs. No risk factors for candidal infection were found in 25 patients. Infection site was the knee in 38 patients and hip in 36; pain was present in 44 patients and swelling in 24. The most frequent species was C. albicans, followed by C. parapsilosis. Eleven patients were only treated with antifungal drugs being the outcome favourable in all of them. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, and resection arthroplasty in other 30; in three patients one-stage exchange arthroplasty was done. A favourable outcome was found in 58 patients after antifungal plus surgical treatment, in 11 after antifungal treatment alone and in one after surgery alone. The type of treatment is still not clearly defined and an algorithm for treatment in fungal PJI should be established, but various types of surgical procedures may be applied.