scholarly journals Evaluation of The Standard Procedure For Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison of The 2015 and 2020 Census in Total Joint Replacement Centres in Germany

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Osmanski-Zenk ◽  
Annett Klinder ◽  
Christina Rimke ◽  
Dieter C. Wirtz ◽  
Christoph H. Lohmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Clear Trend ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Revision Arthroplasties ◽  
Therapeutic Algorithms

Abstract Background Since there are no national or international algorithms there are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Therefore, the present paper evaluates the respective protocols from different centres on the basis of an EndoCert questionnaire to treat PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ).Materials and methodsA questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the principles to treat septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ including questions on various treatment options: prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and sampling prior to reimplantation. All certified EPZ were included (n = 504). The results of the current survey 2020 were compared to those of a previous analysis.ResultsThe number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery has clearly decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option has increased (hip: +6.3%; knee: +6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4-8 week period as the interval between prosthesis removal and reimplantation for two-stage replacement for both, hip and knee revisions. Amongst centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (>200 revisions/year), there were even more that opted for the 4-8 week period (92.3%). The Girdlestone situation, but also metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement, are less frequently used. When exchanging knee replacements, there was a clear trend towards cemented anchoring, whereas cementless anchorage was preferred for hip replacements. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure continues to increase. In addition, more samples for microbiological testing are taken when removing the endoprosthesis, 72% of the centres take 5 or more samples.ConclusionWhile there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Osmanski-Zenk ◽  
Annett Klinder ◽  
Christina Rimke ◽  
Dieter C. Wirtz ◽  
Christoph H. Lohmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Treatment Regime ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Revision Arthroplasties ◽  
Therapeutic Algorithms

Abstract Background There are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), however, national or international guidelines for a standardised treatment regime are still lacking. The present paper evaluates the use of the predominant treatment protocols for PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ) in Germany based on an EndoCert questionnaire. Materials and methods The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the treatment protocols for septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ. Questions targeted the various treatment options including prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and diagnostic sampling prior to re-implantation. All certified EPZ participated (n = 504) and the results from the current survey in 2020 were compared to data from a previous analysis in 2015. Results The number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option increased (hip: + 6.3%; knee: + 6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4–8 week period as the preferred interval between prosthesis removal and re-implantation in two-stage revision in hip as well as knee revisions. Centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (> 200 revisions/year), opted even more often for the 4–8 week period (92.3%). In two-stage revision the use of metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement as an interim placeholder was significantly reduced in 2020 compared to 2015. There was also a clear preference for cemented anchoring in two-stage revision arthroplasty in the knee in 2020, whereas the majority of hip replacements was cementless. Additionally, in 2020 the number of samples for microbiological testing during the removal of the infected endoprosthesis increased and 72% of the centres took five or more samples. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure expanded from 2015 to 2020. Conclusion While there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - Results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Rimke ◽  
Andreas Enz ◽  
Hermann Josef Bail ◽  
Peter Heppt ◽  
Bernd Kladny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Joint Infections ◽  
Standardized Treatment ◽  
Principles Of Treatment ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background: The periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication in the field of arthroplasty. Despite the rising number of primary joint replacements, no unified therapeutic standard has been established for the treatment of PJI yet.Methods: A survey on the principles of treatment of PJI in Germany wasconducted. A total of 515 EndoProthetikZentren (EPZ) were included, resulting in a response rate of 100%.Results: For early infections 97.6% of the centers use prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR). A one-stage exchange was implemented by less than 50% of the centers. If implemented, this treatment entails a prior selection of patients for a successful treatment. The two-stage exchange is performed in all centers, and most centers proceed with the implantation of a cemented spacer between stages. 75% of the centers proceed with a center-based concept for the treatment of PJI.Conclusion: The aim of a uniform PJI standard at the centers has not yet been fully achieved. Further improvements within the certification were initiated. The most relevant treatment options in Germany are displayed. The two-stage revision with a cemented spacer is the most widely implemented treatment. This exposition of principles could help for the further development of standardized treatment guidelines and definitions.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Rimke ◽  
Andreas Enz ◽  
Hermann Josef Bail ◽  
Peter Heppt ◽  
Bernd Kladny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Joint Infections ◽  
Standardized Treatment ◽  
Principles Of Treatment ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background The periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication in the field of arthroplasty. Despite the rising number of primary joint replacements, no unified therapeutic standard has been established for the treatment of PJI yet. Methods A survey on the principles of treatment of PJI in Germany was conducted. A total of 515 EndoProthetikZentren (EPZ) were included, resulting in a response rate of 100%. Results For early infections 97.6% of the centers use prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR). A one-stage exchange was implemented by less than 50% of the centers. If implemented, this treatment entails a prior selection of patients for a successful treatment. The two-stage exchange is performed in all centers, and most centers proceed with the implantation of a cemented spacer between stages. 75% of the centers proceed with a center-based concept for the treatment of PJI. Conclusion The aim of a uniform PJI standard at the centers has not yet been fully achieved. Further improvements within the certification were initiated. The most relevant treatment options in Germany are displayed. The two-stage revision with a cemented spacer is the most widely implemented treatment. This exposition of principles could help for the further development of standardized treatment guidelines and definitions.

scholarly journals Diagnosis and management of infected arthroplasty

SICOT-J ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Tejbir S. Pannu ◽  
Jesus M. Villa ◽  
Carlos A. Higuera
Keyword(s):  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sinus Tract ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Musculoskeletal Infection ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Exchange 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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - Results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Rimke ◽  
Andreas Enz ◽  
Hermann Josef Bail ◽  
Peter Heppt ◽  
Bernd Kladny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Joint Replacements ◽  
Joint Infections ◽  
Standardized Treatment ◽  
Principles Of Treatment ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background: The periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication in the field of arthroplasty. Despite the rising number of primary joint replacements, no unified therapeutic standard has been established for the treatment of PJI yet.Methods: A survey on the principles of treatment of PJI in Germany wasconducted. A total of 515 EndoProthetikZentren (EPZ) were included, resulting in a response rate of 100%.Results: For early infections 97.6% of the centers use prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR). A one-stage exchange was implemented by less than 50% of the centers. If implemented, this treatment entails a prior selection of patients for a successful treatment. The two-stage exchange is performed in all centers, and most centers proceed with the implantation of a cemented spacer between stages. 75% of the centers proceed with a center-based concept for the treatment of PJI.Conclusion: The aim of a uniform PJI standard at the centers has not yet been fully achieved. Further improvements within the certification were initiated. The most relevant treatment options in Germany are displayed. The two-stage revision with a cemented spacer is the most widely implemented treatment. This exposition of principles could help for the further development of standardized treatment guidelines and definitions.

The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: safety and efficacy of two stage versus one stage exchange arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Palmer ◽  
Tejbir S. Pannu ◽  
Jesus M. Villa ◽  
Jorge Manrique ◽  
Aldo M. Riesgo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty

One stage treatment of temporomandibular joint complete bony ankylosis using total joint replacement

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Gerbino ◽  
Emanuele Zavattero ◽  
Sid Berrone ◽  
Guglielmo Ramieri
Keyword(s):  
Temporomandibular Joint ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Bony Ankylosis

scholarly journals Extended follow-up of patients suspected of having joint sepsis after total joint replacement

1985 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. M. Lidwell ◽  
E. J. L. Lowbury ◽  
W. Whyte ◽  
R. Blowers ◽  
D. Lowe
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Hospital Records ◽  
Knee Joint Replacement ◽  
Total Hip

SUMMARYDuring an average follow-up time of about 2½ years after total hip or knee-joint replacement in 8052 patients, suspected joint infection was recorded in 85 patients whose joints had not been re-operated during that period. The hospital records of 72 of these patients were examined after a further period, averaging about 5 years. Thirty-five of these had suffered continuing major problems with the joint, 18 of which had been revised, and a further 9 joints needed such treatment. Infection was confirmed in 17 of the 35. These numbers are proportionately about three times greater than those observed among a set of matched controls followed-up for a similar period. The evidence from the extended follow-up suggests that the failure rate, unassociated with infection, reached about 5% by 7 years after operation and that late infections, manifested between about 2½ and 7 years after operation, were about as frequent as those confirmed during the first 2½ years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document