Revision Of Infected Knee Arthroplasty Research Articles

The ‘apple core’ cement spacer for the management of massive bone loss in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty for infection

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are used in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty for infection, but commercially available spacers may not always be suitable for significant bone loss or soft tissue failure in multiply revised cases. We describe a technique for producing an on-table, static, reinforced cement spacer – the ‘apple core’ spacer – with the intended outcome of providing joint stability in such patients, prior to undertaking a second-stage procedure. Following a radical debridement, the spacer is made of three components: (1) a ‘central bar’ of external fixator connecting rods, combined using cerclage wires as needed; (2) a standard polymethylmethacrylate cement ‘apple core’; and (3) a covering ‘skin’ of high dose antibiotic-loaded cement, which is stippled as it sets, to increase the surface area and facilitate antibiotic elution. This technique was performed in nine patients who underwent two-stage salvage revision for complex, recurrent infected total knee arthroplasty at a single institution. All patients successfully went on to definitive second-stage reimplantation and have retained their limbs. The ‘apple core’ cement spacer allows massive bone defects to be effectively managed between staged revision procedures.

One‐stage Versus Two‐stage Exchange

Liaison: Paul Lichstein MD, MSLeaders: Thorsten Gehrke MD (International), Adolph Lombardi MD, FACS (US), Carlo RomanoMD (International), Ian Stockley MB, ChB, MD, FRCS (International)Delegates: George Babis MD, Jerzy Bialecki MD, La´szlo´ Bucsi MD, Xu Cai MD, Li Cao MD, Briande Beaubien MD, Johannes Erhardt MD, Stuart Goodman MD, PhD, FRCSC, FACS, FBSE,William Jiranek MD, Peter Keogh, David Lewallen MD, MS, Paul Manner MD, WojciechMarczynski MD, J. Bohannon Mason MD, Kevin Mulhall MB, MCh, FRCSI, Wayne PaproskyMD, Preetesh Patel MD, Francisco Piccaluga MD, Gregory Polkowski MD, Luis Pulido MD, IanStockley MBBS, ChB, FRCS, Juan Suarez MD, Fritz Thorey MD, Rashid Tikhilov MD, JobDiego Velazquez MD, Heinz Winkler MD

Single stage revision

In this paper we make the case for the use of single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty.

Two stage revision knee arthroplasty for infection with massive bone loss. A technique to achieve spacer stability

We report a technique for the intra-operative production of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer, reinforced with an intramedullary nail. The spacer is designed for use in cases where significant bone loss and/or ligamentous instability prevent the formation of a stable joint when using a conventional spacer during a two-stage revision knee arthroplasty. This technique has been performed in eleven patients. Nine patients have subsequently undergone a second-stage procedure. Two patients died of unrelated causes before a second-stage could be performed. In all but one case, the infection has been successfully eradicated and patients remain infection free at a mean follow-up of 32 months (range 21–64 months). We believe that the described technique is an effective alternative to the traditional spacer, in patients with significant bone loss and/or ligamentous instability. It delivers antibiotics locally, while producing a mechanically stable joint, on which the patient can mobilise, maintaining leg length and tissue tensions.

Durable Infection Control and Function With the PROSTALAC Spacer in Two-stage Revision for Infected Knee Arthroplasty

A two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty is recognized as the gold standard in the treatment of infection. However, traditional spacers limit function in the interval between the two stages and may cause instability, scarring, and bone erosion. The PROSTALAC knee spacer is an antibiotic-loaded cement articulating spacer that allows some movement of the knee between stages. Whether motion enhances long-term function is unknown. We therefore identify the rate of control of infection using the PROSTALAC exchange spacer and to assess the clinical outcome after implantation with a definitive implant. We retrospectively reviewed 115 knees that underwent two-stage exchange with the PROSTALAC spacer. Forty-eight of these had a minimum followup of 5 years (mean, 9 years; range, 5-12 years). At last review, 101 of the 115 knees (88%) had no evidence of infection. Of the 14 knees that became reinfected, four were from the same organism and 10 were with a different organism. After further intervention, using the two-stage approach again, the infection was controlled in 12 of the 14 initially reinfected cases, resulting in a failure to cure in only two cases. We observed improvements in mean WOMAC, Oxford, UCLA, and Patient Satisfaction scores at last review. The PROSTALAC functional spacer was associated with a 98% rate of control of infection and improvements in the quality-of-life outcomes in the treatment of chronically infected total knee arthroplasties. Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction with tumour prosthesis for periprosthetic knee infection associated with segmental bone defects

Revision knee arthroplasty for infection poses a treatment challenge. The presence of massive osteolysis limits the treatment options in this cohort. Controversy exists in the management of these patients. Direct exchange arthroplasty has provided good results in the presence of infection, but whether this is appropriate in the presence of massive bone defects associated with the infection is undetermined. We present our experience in revision knee arthroplasty for infection associated with massive bone defects. The aim of the study is to present the preliminary results of a direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction with tumour prosthesis for periprosthetic infection associated with segmental bone defects. This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data, involving six patients with periprosthetic infection and massive bone defects treated by direct exchange tumour prostheses between 2003 and 2007 (four distal femoral replacements and two total femoral replacements). The mean age and follow-up were 74.2 (±5.2) years and 32.5 (±8.2) months respectively. Each patient had an infected revised knee arthroplasty at the time of referral to our institution. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causal organism. The mean duration of antibiotics was 6 weeks intravenous therapy followed by 3.5 months oral. The recurrences of infection, pain or immobility were outcome criteria considered failures. Our success rate was 80%. Salvage of infected revised knee arthroplasty by direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction has provided an effective means of pain relief, joint stability and improved mobility in our cohort. It reduces morbidity through earlier mobilisation and avoids a second major operation.

Custom-made hinged spacers in revision knee surgery for patients with infection, bone loss and instability

Polymethyl methacrylate spacers are commonly used during staged revision knee arthroplasty for infection. In cases with extensive bone loss and ligament instability, such spacers may not preserve limb length, joint stability and motion. We report a retrospective case series of 19 consecutive patients using a custom-made cobalt chrome hinged spacer with antibiotic-loaded cement. The “SMILES spacer” was used at first-stage revision knee arthroplasty for chronic infection associated with a significant bone loss due to failed revision total knee replacement in 11 patients (58%), tumour endoprosthesis in four patients (21%), primary knee replacement in two patients (11%) and infected metalwork following fracture or osteotomy in a further two patients (11%). Mean follow-up was 38 months (range 24–70). In 12 (63%) patients, infection was eradicated, three patients (16%) had persistent infection and four (21%) developed further infection after initially successful second-stage surgery. Above knee amputation for persistent infection was performed in two patients. In this particularly difficult to treat population, the SMILES spacer two-stage technique has demonstrated encouraging results and presents an attractive alternative to arthrodesis or amputation.

Lactobacillus as a rare cause of an infected total knee replacement: a case report

IntroductionWe report a rare case of an infected revision total knee replacement as a result of a Lactobacillus species infection. Lactobacillus infections have been associated with prolonged broad-spectrum antibiotic use. This can have implications in revision surgery, especially when patients have been on previous long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy.Case presentationAn 81-year-old British man with a previous history of complex revision knee arthroplasty for infection presented with a hot, swollen knee joint. He had previously been on long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy. Aspiration of the knee joint yielded a culture of Lactobacillus species.ConclusionIn patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty, especially for previous infection, the presence of common and uncommon bacterial species must be excluded and eradicated before further surgical intervention.

Spacer prostheses in two-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasty

At present, no consensus exists on the best spacer alternative for the management of two-stage exchange arthroplasty of infected knee arthroplasties. In this retrospective study, patient records of 24 patients, who had undergone two-stage revisions in which resterilised prosthetic components were used as spacers, were reviewed. The outcome was compared to that of operations performed during the same period (1993-2003) using cement spacers (n=10). With an average follow-up of 32 months, control of infection was achieved in 26 cases (76%), with good or excellent clinical outcome in 19 cases (56%). Treatment failed and resulted in amputation at the level of the thigh before reimplantation in one case. Three patients did not undergo reimplantation. In four cases (12%) infection relapsed. The reinfection rate did not differ between the two spacer groups. Patients treated with resterilised components had a superior range of motion during the period between the two stages. Operative time was shorter and there was less blood loss in the reimplantation arthroplasty when a prosthetic spacer was used. We consider resterilised prosthetic components a safe and effective alternative to cement spacers in the management of infected knee arthroplasties.