scholarly journals Outcome of Irrigation and Debridement after Failed Two-Stage Reimplantation for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Faschingbauer ◽  
F. Boettner ◽  
R. Bieger ◽  
C. Weiner ◽  
H. Reichel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Subsequent Infection ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Implant Infection ◽  
Irrigation And Debridement ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Susceptible Organism

Introduction. Two-stage revision is the gold standard for the treatment of deep implant infection after knee or hip arthroplasty. Irrigation and debridement may be a treatment option for failed 2-stage revisions in cases where a reinfection occurs within 30 days or the symptoms exist not longer than 3 weeks and is appealing because of its low morbidity. We determined the incidence of recurrent infections following irrigation and debridement for failed two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. We performed a single center retrospective review of periprosthetic hip and knee infections treated with a two-stage procedure from 2002 to 2010. All patients that subsequently underwent irrigation and debridement for a subsequent infection were selected for the current study. Results. 440 two-stage revisions were performed between 2002 and 2010. Fifty-one two-stage revisions failed (11.6%). Nineteen failed two-stage revisions were treated with irrigation and debridement; 12 (63.2%) patients remained free of infection at follow-up (mean follow-up: 39 months; range, 24-90 months), infection persisted in 6 patients (31.6%), and 1 patient died (5.3%). Conclusions. Success rates of irrigation and debridement for failed two-stage procedures are similar to the success rates of irrigation and debridement in primary implant infections. According to the current paper, irrigation and debridement are an acceptable treatment for acute reinfections after failed two-stage revision if performed within the first 30 postoperative days after failed two-stage procedure or if symptoms are present for less than 3 weeks in the presence of a susceptible organism.

scholarly journals Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. C. Steinicke ◽  
J. Schwarze ◽  
G. Gosheger ◽  
B. Moellenbeck ◽  
T. Ackmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty ◽  
Parametric Testing

Abstract Introduction Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. Materials and methods We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22–51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. Results 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64–89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18–57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher’s exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. Conclusion The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Janna van den Kieboom ◽  
Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala ◽  
Hayden Box ◽  
Ruben Oganesyan ◽  
Christian Klemt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Culture Negative

Aims Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients.

Current actual success rate of the two-stage exchange arthroplasty strategy in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1682-1688
Author(s):  
Pablo S. Corona ◽  
Matías Vicente ◽  
Lluís Carrera ◽  
Dolors Rodríguez-Pardo ◽  
Sebastián Corró
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Medical Issues ◽  
American Society

Aims The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688.

scholarly journals Two-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss: Results from 182 cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Białecki ◽  
Maciej Kogut ◽  
Sławomir Chaberek ◽  
Paweł Bartosz ◽  
Marcin Obrębski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Retrospective Assessment ◽  
Severe Bone Loss ◽  
Paprosky Classification

The optimum treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip with substantial bone defects remains controversial. A retrospective assessment was performed for 182 patients treated for PJI with a two-stage protocol from 2005 to 2015. Implant removal and debridement were followed by Girdlestone arthroplasty or spacer implantation. The results of the Girdlestone and spacer groups were compared. There were 71 cases that received spacers, and 111 Girdlestone procedures were performed. After the first stage, 26.37% of cultures were negative, and among patients with a detected pathogen, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism (41.79%). Acetabular and femoral bone defects, according to the Paprosky classification, were more severe in the Girdlestone group (P<0.05). During the follow-up (mean, 5.95 years), the overall incidence of complications was 21.42%. The mean Harris hip score was significantly lower in the Girdlestone group (68.39 vs 77.79; P<0.0001). The infection recurrence rate reached 8.79%. Despite satisfactory infection control, the number of complications and poor functional outcomes associated with resection arthroplasty indicate the necessity for development of different approaches for patients with advanced bone loss.

Outcomes of repeat two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (6_Supple_B) ◽  
pp. 110-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Khan ◽  
D. Parmar ◽  
M. S. Ibrahim ◽  
B. Kayani ◽  
F. S. Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Prosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Antimicrobial Treatment ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Revision Tha

Aims The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients and Methods We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years. Results A satisfactory control of infection and successful outcome was seen in 26 patients (57%). There therefore remained persistent symptoms that either required further surgery or chronic antibiotic suppression in 16 patients (38%). One-third of patients had died by the time of two years’ follow-up. Conclusion The rate of failure and complication rate of repeat two-stage exchange THA for PJI is high and new methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer periods between stages, and new and more powerful forms of antimicrobial treatment should be investigated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):110–115.

scholarly journals Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection with Debridement, Antibiotics and Irrigation with Implant Retention - a Narrative Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Sousa ◽  
Miguel Araújo Abreu
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Prosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Implant Retention ◽  
Patient Selection Criteria

Abstract. Prosthetic joint infection usually requires combined medical and surgical therapy. While revision surgery is widely considered to be the gold standard surgical procedure, debridement, antibiotics and irrigation with implant retention is a very appealing alternative.There is however great controversy regarding its real worth with success rates ranging from 0% to over 90%. A number of different patient and host related variables as well as specific aspects of surgical and medical management have been described as relevant for the final outcome.Along this paper, the authors will provide the readers with a critical narrative review of the currently available literature while trying to provide concise and practical treatment recommendations regarding adequate patient selection criteria, proper surgical technique and optimal antibiotic therapy.

scholarly journals Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Hip Infection: Mean Follow-Up of Ten Years

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szu-Yuan Chen ◽  
Chi-Chien Hu ◽  
Chun-Chieh Chen ◽  
Yu-Han Chang ◽  
Pang-Hsin Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Eradication Of Infection ◽  
The Mean

Background. Two-stage revision hip arthroplasty is the gold standard for treatment of patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but few studies have reported outcomes beyond short-term follow-up.Methods. A total of 155 patients who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic PJI in 157 hips were retrospectively enrolled in this study between January 2001 and December 2010. The mean patient age was 57.5 years, the mean prosthetic age was 3.6 years, and the interim interval was 17.8 weeks. These patients were followed up for an average of 9.7 years.Results. At the latest follow-up, 91.7% of the patients were free of infection. The mean Harris hip score improved significantly from 28.3 points before operation to 85.7 points at the latest follow-up. Radiographically, there was aseptic loosening of the stem or acetabular components in 4 patients. In the multivariate survival analysis using a Cox regression model, repeated debridement before final reconstruction, an inadequate interim period, bacteriuria or pyuria, and cirrhosis were found to be the independent risk factors for treatment failure.Conclusion. Our data show that two-stage revision hip arthroplasty provides reliable eradication of infection and durable reconstruction of the joint in patients with PJI caused by a variety of pathogens.

scholarly journals Is There a Role for Spacer Exchange in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elie Kozaily ◽  
Emanuele Chisari ◽  
Javad Parvizi
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Cement Spacer ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Local Antibiotics ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be one of the most serious complications after hip and knee arthroplasty. The choice of surgical treatment depends on a multitude of factors like chronicity of infection, host factors, and institutional or surgeon experience. Two-stage exchange remains one of the most commonly used technique for chronic PJI in the United States of America. The intended two-stage revision may involve an additional interim procedure where the initial antibiotic cement spacer is removed and a new spacer is inserted. Mostly, the rationale behind spacer exchange is an additional load of local antibiotics before proceeding to reimplantation. There is no conclusive evidence whether a spacer exchange confers additional benefits, yet it delays reimplantation and exposes already fragile patients to the risks and morbidity of an additional surgery.

scholarly journals Complications in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip: when do they occur?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 295-303
Author(s):  
Katherine Li ◽  
Mario Cuadra ◽  
Gregory Scarola ◽  
Susan Odum ◽  
Jesse Otero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Complication ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Medical Complication ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Musculoskeletal Infection ◽  
Prosthetic Joint ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
The Usa

Abstract. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The common treatment in the USA is a two-stage exchange which can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to analyze complications in the treatment course of patients undergoing two-stage exchange for PJI THA and determine when they occur. Methods: We analyzed all patients that underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of PJI after THA from January 2005 to January 2018 at a single institution. Complications were categorized as medical or surgical and divided into interstage and post-reimplantation. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Success was based on the MusculoSkeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition. Results: 205 hips (203 patients) underwent first stage of planned two-stage exchange. The median age was 68 (interquartile range (IQR) 18). There were 97 males and 106 females. Overall, 73/205 (38 %) patients had at least one complication during treatment: 13.5 % (25/185) of patients experienced a medical complication and 28.1 % (52/185) a surgical complication; 2.4 % died within 1 year of surgery, and 4.9 % (15/203) had mortality at a median of 2.5 years (IQR 4.9); 27 % of patients had complications during the interstage period, most commonly being recurrence of infection requiring additional surgery (63 %); and 14 % of patients experienced a complication following reimplantation, most commonly persistence or recurrence of infection (59 %). While 92 % of patients that initiated treatment were ultimately reimplanted, only 69 % were infection free at 1 year and required no additional treatment. Conclusions: While two-stage exchanges for PJI in THA have been reported as successful, there are few reports of the complications during the process. In our series, significant numbers of patients experienced complications, often during the interstage period, highlighting the morbidity of this method of treatment.

scholarly journals Comparison of the success rate after debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for periprosthetic joint infection among patients with or without a sinus tract

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Deng ◽  
Rui Li ◽  
Hongyi Shao ◽  
Baozhan Yu ◽  
Jiying Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Sinus Tract ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Implant Retention ◽  
Potential Risk Factors

Abstract Background The relevance between the presence of a sinus tract and the failure risk after debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after hip or knee arthroplasty is still unclear. This study aimed to compare the success rate of DAIR between patients with or without a sinus tract and to explore the possible risk factors for failure after DAIR in patients with a sinus tract. Methods Consecutive DAIR cases for PJI after hip or knee arthroplasty between January 2009 and June 2019 with a minimum 1-year follow-up in two tertiary joint arthroplasty centers were included. Patients were classified into the sinus tract group and the non-sinus tract group according to the presence of a sinus tract. The success rate after DAIR were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Potential risk factors for failure in the sinus group were also explored. Results One hundred seven patients were included. At a median 4.4 years of follow-up, 19 of 52 (36.5%) cases failed in the sinus tract group, while 15 of 55 (27.3%) cases failed in the non-sinus tract group. The 1-year and 5-year cumulative success rates were 71.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 59.8-84.6%) and 56.8% (95% CI: 42.6-75.7%) in the sinus tract group, respectively, which were similar to the counterparts in the non-sinus tract group (P = 0.214). Among patients with a sinus tract, DAIR with the exchange of modular components showed a higher success rate (75.8% versus 47.4%, P = 0.038). Conclusions The presence of a sinus tract does not affect the success rate of DAIR. Modular component exchange in DAIR was proposed for patients with a sinus tract for an improved infection control rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document