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

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Marmor ◽  
Younes Kerroumi ◽  
Vanina Meyssonnier ◽  
Luc Lhotellier ◽  
Antoine Mouton ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Palmer ◽  
Tejbir S. Pannu ◽  
Jesus M. Villa ◽  
Jorge Manrique ◽  
Aldo M. Riesgo ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Roy Gonzalez ◽  
Ernesto Muñoz-Mahamud ◽  
Guillem Bori

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 3555-3560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng-Chih Kuo ◽  
Karan Goswami ◽  
Noam Shohat ◽  
Kier Blevins ◽  
Alexander J. Rondon ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akos Zahar ◽  
Ianiv Klaber ◽  
Anne-Marie Gerken ◽  
Thorsten Gehrke ◽  
Matthias Gebauer ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 3541-3546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. Tan ◽  
Karan Goswami ◽  
Yale A. Fillingham ◽  
Noam Shohat ◽  
Alexander J. Rondon ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2749-2756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiaojie Wang ◽  
Karan Goswami ◽  
Feng-Chih Kuo ◽  
Chi Xu ◽  
Timothy L. Tan ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
A. C. Steinicke ◽  
J. Schwarze ◽  
G. Gosheger ◽  
B. Moellenbeck ◽  
T. Ackmann ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document