Effi ciency of two-stage revision arthroplasty in management of periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection

Introduction Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the "gold standard" of surgical treatment of periprosthetic infection in most domestic and foreign hospitals. This technique involves removal of implant components, debridement of the purulent focus and installation of a cement spacer which is subsequently replaced with a permanent implant after 3–9 months. Purpose To evaluate mid-term results of two-stage surgical treatment of patients with chronic periprosthetic infection of the knee and hip joints. Materials and methods Treatment outcomes of 172 patients with periprosthetic infection who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2011 to 2015 were assessed. Among them, 113 patients developed infection after hip replacement and 59 patients had infected knee joint. The average follow-up period was 4 ± 1.58 years (range: 2 to 6 years). Results Out of 113 two-stage procedures of hip joint revision, 102 (90.2%) cases showed an arrest of infection. Four (3.6%) patients with recurrence of the purulent process underwent resection arthroplasty, another four (3.6%) rejected to replace the spacer with an implant, and three (2.6%) had a two-stage re-revision. Out of 60 (59 patients) procedures of a two-stage knee joint revision, infection was arrested in 50 (83.3%) cases; eight (13.4%) had recurrence and underwent knee arthrodesis. One (1.6 %) refused to replace a spacer for an implant, and one more (1.6%) had a two-stage repeated revision. Conclusions Two-stage knee and hip revision arthroplasty using a cement spacer is an effective option for treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection. It provides infection control in 86.7% (83.3% for knee and 90.2 % for hip joints) of cases in the mid-term follow-up period up to 5 years. However, the rate of re-infection remains significant and reaches 13.3 % (9.8% for hip and 16.7 % for knee joints).

[1]  P. M. Preobrazhenskii,et al.  Current views on diagnosing and treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection after the knee arthroplasty , 2016 .

[2]  Michael A Mont,et al.  Periprosthetic joint infection , 2016, The Lancet.

[3]  W. Maloney,et al.  Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection With a Two-stage Protocol Using Static Spacers , 2016, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  W. Zimmerli,et al.  One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips , 2016, International Orthopaedics.

[5]  G. Babis,et al.  Two-Stage Revision Protocol in Multidrug Resistant Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Long Interval Between Stages. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  D. Kendoff,et al.  [Dynamic versus static cement spacer in periprosthetic knee infection: A meta-analysis]. , 2015, Der Orthopade.

[7]  R. Sousa,et al.  Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in total joint arthroplasty. , 2015, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[8]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Diagnosis of Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2015, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[9]  Changjiao Sun,et al.  [Causes of failure after total knee arthroplasty]. , 2015, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi.

[10]  L. Frommelt,et al.  Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review , 2015, Orthopedic reviews.

[11]  K. Daniilidis,et al.  Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Cases of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Analysis of 50 Cases , 2015, The open orthopaedics journal.

[12]  Alan L. Zhang,et al.  Management of deep postoperative shoulder infections: is there a role for open biopsy during staged treatment? , 2015, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[13]  C. Pornrattanamaneewong,et al.  Revision primary total hip replacement: causes and risk factors. , 2015, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[14]  D. Jacofsky,et al.  Early postoperative complications after total hip arthroplasty: current strategies for prevention and treatment. , 2015, Instructional course lectures.

[15]  Hai-yang Ma,et al.  [Causes of early failure after total hip arthroplasty]. , 2014, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi.

[16]  C. Peters,et al.  Two-Stage Revision TKA Is Associated with High Complication and Failure Rates , 2014, Advances in orthopedics.

[17]  J. Hardes,et al.  Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty with a hexagonal modular cementless stem in cases of periprosthetic infection , 2014, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[18]  J. Ravlić-Gulan,et al.  Periprosthetic infections after total hip and knee arthroplasty--a review. , 2014, Collegium antropologicum.

[19]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years? , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  J. Howell,et al.  Management of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty using a custom made articulating spacer (CUMARS); the Exeter experience. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  M. A. Arrabal-Polo,et al.  Descriptive analysis of the economic costs of periprosthetic joint infection of the knee for the public health system of Andalusia. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[22]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Success After Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Delphi-based International Multidisciplinary Consensus , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[23]  Joanne B. Adams,et al.  Two-stage Treatment of Hip Periprosthetic Joint Infection Is Associated With a High Rate of Infection Control but High Mortality , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[24]  B. Rice,et al.  Monitoring Bacterial Burden, Inflammation and Bone Damage Longitudinally Using Optical and μCT Imaging in an Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Mice , 2012, PloS one.

[25]  J. Singh,et al.  Ninety-day mortality in patients undergoing elective total hip or total knee arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  W. Maloney,et al.  Advanced age and comorbidity increase the risk for adverse events after revision total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Two-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty: Predictors of Failure , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  K. Chiu,et al.  Review Article: Bone Defect Classifications in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2011, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[29]  Christina L. Jacovides,et al.  Definition of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Is There a Consensus? , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  W. Zimmerli,et al.  Infectiological, functional, and radiographic outcome after revision for prosthetic hip infection according to a strict algorithm , 2011, Acta orthopaedica.

[31]  E. Moran,et al.  The diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infections. , 2010, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[32]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Periprosthetic joint infection: treatment options. , 2010, Orthopedics.

[33]  Mel S. Lee,et al.  Two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer: retrospective comparison between short-term and prolonged antibiotic therapy. , 2009, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[34]  C. D. Della Valle,et al.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.