High re-revision rate following one-stage exchange for streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002199146
Author(s):  
Malte Ohlmeier ◽  
Insa Jachczik ◽  
Mustafa Citak ◽  
Thorsten Gehrke ◽  
Nael Hawi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Streptococcal Infection ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
One Stage ◽  
The Mean

Introduction: This study was undertaken to analyse the outcome of 1-stage exchange in the management of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip at a single hospital. Methods: We identified 30 patients with a streptococcal PJI of the hip who had been treated by 1-stage exchange at our hospital between 2002 and 2017. Postoperative complications and the need for any subsequent re-revision for infection or other reasons were analysed. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was evaluated at final follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up was 8.2 years (SD 4.1). The overall re-revision rate for any reason was 53% (16/30) at a mean 5.3 years (SD 0.68 years). Re-revision for infection was 20% (6/30) at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.74 years). All re-revisions for PJI (6/6; 100%) were for relapse of the streptococcal infection. At final follow-up, the mean HHS was 68 points (SD 20). Conclusions: The rate of re-revision after 1-stage exchange for streptococcal PJI is high. Eradication of a streptococcal PJI of the hip remains challenging. Further extensive and comparative studies between 1-and 2-stage exchange are encouraged.

scholarly journals Improved treatment strategies can result in better outcomes following one-stage exchange surgery for MRSA periprosthetic joint infection

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 1100-1104
Author(s):  
Malte Ohlmeier ◽  
Sergei Filitarin ◽  
Giorgio Delgado ◽  
Jannik Frings ◽  
Hussein Abdelaziz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Rate ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Joint Infections ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The One ◽  
Final Cohort

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-PJIs) are rare, with only a few studies reporting the treatment outcomes and even fewer reporting outcomes with one-stage exchange. Aim. This study aims to analyse the outcomes of one-stage exchange in the management of MRSA-PJIs. Methodology. Patients with MRSA-PJI of the hip and knee, who were treated with a one-stage exchange between 2001 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. The final cohort comprised of 29 patients, which included 23 hips and six knees. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1–9 years). Reinfection and complications rates after the one-stage exchange were analysed. Results. Overall infection control could be achieved in 93.1 % (27 out of 29 patients). The overall revision rate was 31.0% (9 patients), with three patients requiring an in-hospital revision (10.3 %). Six patients had to be revised after hospital discharge (20.7 %). Of the two reinfections, one had a growth of MRSA while the other was of methicillin-sensitive Staphyloccocus epidermidis. Conclusion. One-stage exchange surgery using current techniques could improve surgical outcomes with excellent results in the management of MRSA-PJIs.

Results at 10–24 years after single-stage revision arthroplasty of infected total hip arthroplasty in patients under 45 years of age

2019 ◽  
pp. 112070001988887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Wolff ◽  
Christian Lausmann ◽  
Thorsten Gehrke ◽  
Akos Zahar ◽  
Malte Ohlmeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
One Stage ◽  
The Mean

Introduction: The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip is a challenging procedure. One-stage exchange is carried out in specialist centres with comparable infection free survival rates. However, there is a paucity of long-term results of this approach in young patients. Methods: All patients undergoing one-stage exchange due to PJI with a known causative organism ⩽45 years of age with a minimum of 10-year follow-up (mean 15 years; range 10–24 years) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients older than 45 years of age or patients with a two-stage procedure were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was failure rate with special focus on reinfection at latest follow-up. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score was determined initially and at latest follow-up. 26 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were available for final follow-up. Results: The study cohort consists of 16 male and 10 female patients with a mean age of 36.8 years (range 20–45 years) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m2 (range 20.7–40.6 kg/m2). Prior to the single-stage procedure, the patients underwent an average of 3.1 previous surgical interventions (range 1–9). The mean hospital stay after septic revision was 19.7 days (11–33 days). Most infections were caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis ( n = 8, 30.8%), followed by Staph. aureus ( n = 7, 26.9%) and Propionibacterium acnes ( n = 6, 23.1%). At latest follow-up, the overall survival rate was 76.9 %, while infection control could be achieved in 96.2%. At final examination, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46.2 to 78.9 (range 18.0–99; SD, 22.6). Conclusions: Single-stage revision surgery for the management of PJI in patients ⩽45 years is a successful treatment option with high infection control, even after long-term follow-up.

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 Management of the Infected Hip Arthroplasty by Two-Stage Reimplantation

2003 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karel Karpaš ◽  
Pavel Šponer
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
One Stage ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Two Stages

The aim of this study is to present our experience with two-stage reimplantation in the management of the infected hip arthroplasty. Between January 1993 and December 2001 the replacement of the total hip arthroplasty in two stages was performed in 18 patients. There were 7 male and 11 female patients and the average age was 62 years. The mean follow-up after revision was 3.5 years. The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score averaged 78 (50–96) points. None of 18 patients had a recurrence of the infection. Two-stage reconstruction of the infected hip is preferred to one-stage exchange arthroplasty at our department because of higher rate of eradication of the infection.

scholarly journals Efficiency of the One-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty in Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection with Sinus Tract

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
V. A. Artyukh ◽  
S. A. Bozhkova ◽  
A. A. Boyarov ◽  
Ju. V. Muravyova ◽  
A. A. Kochish
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Sinus Tract ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The One

Background. Chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains the one among the most severe complications of total hip arthroplasty. Presence of sinus tract assosiated with polymicrobial infection development, complexity of bacteriological diagnostics  and  damage  of  soft  tissues  lead  to  constrictions  of  one-stage  revision  hip  arthroplasty  (RHA). The  aim of this studywas to assess the influence of draining sinus tract on the outcomes of one-stage RHA in patients with chronic hip PJI.Materials and Methods.A prospective cohort comparative study included 78 patients who underwent one-stage RHA in 2017-2020. Two groups were formed: 48 (61.54%) patients without sinus tract (WST) and 30 (38.45%) patients with sinus tract (ST).Results. The presence of a sinus tract significantly increased the duration of a one-stage RHA in groups of ST and WST (230 and 197.5 min respectively, p = 0.02), as well as blood loss (850 ml and 700 ml, respectively, p = 0.046). Sinus tract was a reliable symptom of soft tissue local infectious inflammation (86.67%, p = 0.00031), fasciitis (36.67%, p = 0.012), purulent cavity (66.67%, p = 0.00027). The structure of the pathogens was comparable. Monobacterial infections predominated in the WST group (82.98%) and in the ST group (77.78%, p = 0.08). In most cases staphylococci were isolated. The median follow-up was 20 months for both groups. The PJI was healed in 93.0% (n = 28) patients in WST group and 82.2% (n = 43) in ST PJI (p>0.05). Postoperative evaluation in the WST and ST groups: HHS 92 and 90 points (p = 0.79), EQ-5D-5L – 0.82 and 0.78 points (p = 0.84) respectively. The proportion of patients who were indicated revision surgery with no PJI association in the ST group exceeded this indicator more than twice according to the WST group — 25 and 11.62%, respectively (p>0.05).Conclusion.As a result of the study, there was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of one-stage RHA in patients with and without sinus tract. Factors such as the anamnesis morbi, the soft tissues condition at the surgical site and the pathogenic microflora characteristics should be taken into account in order to achieve favourable outcomes of surgical treatment.

Is two-stage revision surgery for infected hip arthroplasty worth the suffering, resources and results compared to one-stage?

2020 ◽  
pp. 112070002094916
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Sotiriou ◽  
Hampus Stigbrand ◽  
Gösta Ullmark
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Impaction Bone Grafting ◽  
One Stage

Purpose: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of total hip arthroplasty. The treatment is usually revision in either 1 or 2 stages. This study analyses revision with impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and compares 1- and 2-stage strategies. Patients and methods: We reviewed 55 consecutive cases (54 patients) of revision arthroplasty for PJI carried out at our hospital between 2002 and 2016. Of these, 46 were 2-stage procedures. 21 had vancomycin mixed in with the bone graft, and all had gentamycin-containing bone cement. The total perioperative blood loss, duration of operation, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Clinical and radiological results were analysed for 48 hips at 2–16 years follow-up. Results: No PJI remained at follow-up. 3 patients (6%) had undergone revision for all causes. 1 had radiological signs of mechanical loosening but was not revised. 2-stage procedures had a significantly longer operating time (409 vs. 238 min) and hospital stay (34 vs. 13 days), greater blood loss (2764 vs. 1638 ml), and lower mean functional hip score (15.9 vs. 17.5) at follow-up than the one-stage procedures. Interpretation: Revision total hip arthroplasty for PJI with vancomycin-loaded impaction bone grafting is a safe method that achieves both the restoration of bone stock and resolution of the infection. This single-stage procedure could therefore be the new gold standard for treatment of non-complicated PJI in the hip.

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.

One-stage exchange should be avoided in periprosthetic joint infection cases with massive femoral bone loss or with history of any failed revision to treat periprosthetic joint infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (7) ◽  
pp. 1247-1253
Author(s):  
Pablo A. Slullitel ◽  
José I. Oñativia ◽  
Gerardo Zanotti ◽  
Fernando Comba ◽  
Francisco Piccaluga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Periprosthetic Fracture ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
One Stage

Aims There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. Results The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. Conclusion Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247–1253.

scholarly journals Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention combined with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion in patients with acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection of the knee

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pruk Chaiyakit ◽  
Surapoj Meknavin ◽  
Natthapong Hongku ◽  
Ittiwat Onklin
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Recommended Treatment ◽  
Implant Retention ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lost To Follow Up ◽  
Antibiotic Infusion

Abstract Background Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is the recommended treatment for acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, DAIR is associated with a high percentage of unsuccessful outcomes. Since 2007, direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion, which can provide a high concentration of intra-articular antibiotic, has been used in combination with DAIR to improve treatment outcomes among patients in our institution. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of DAIR combined with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion in patients who presented with acute hematogenous PJI after TKA. Methods We reviewed the data of all patients diagnosed with acute hematogenous PJI after primary TKA (from 2008 to 2015) who received DAIR combined with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Results In total, 15 knees in 12 patients were semi-urgently treated with this method. The mean follow-up time was 93.3 (minimum: 56) months, and the longest follow-up time was 11 years. Two patients (n = 3 knees) had a well-functioning, non-infected prosthesis 6 and 10 years after the procedure. Two patients (n = 2 knees) had re-infection 2 and 5 years after surgery, and they required two-stage revision. None of the patients were lost to follow-up. Finally, 13 (86.6%) of 15 infected knees were successfully treated with this method. Conclusions DAIR combined with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion is an effective treatment for acute hematogenous PJI after TKA.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Roy Gonzalez ◽  
Ernesto Muñoz-Mahamud ◽  
Guillem Bori
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Positive Culture ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Cement Spacer ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty ◽  
Severe Bone Loss

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document