Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions. METHODS: Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model. RESULTS: For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7-8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9-9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0-19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7-19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias. CONCLUSION: The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate. RESULTS: 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure. INTERPRETATION: There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Similar risk of complete revision for infection with single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 242,179 patients.

Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.

Single-stage total knee arthroplasty and osteotomy as treatment of secondary osteoarthritis with severe coronal deviation of joint surface due to extra-articular deformity.

PURPOSE: Severe extra-articular deformities can be treated with single-stage total knee replacement (TKA) and osteotomy. Aim of this study was to examine the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the complications after single-stage TKA and osteotomy. We hypothesized patients achieve good outcome after single-stage TKA and osteotomy, which is comparable to outcome after primary TKA without deformity. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with severe extra-articular deformity who underwent single-stage TKA and deformity-correcting osteotomy were reviewed and invited to fill in PROMs including the Oxford Knee Score, the Short Form-12, a Visual Analogue Scale for pain, and questions about satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 64 months. Ten patients were treated with TKA and supracondylar femoral osteotomy. Although PROMs showed good results (mean quality of life score was 85 out of 100), two patients had a revision of the osteotomy due to non-union. Eleven patients were treated with TKA and high tibial osteotomy. Patients were satisfied with the results (mean quality of life score was 81 out of 100). Two patients developed infection requiring debridement, resulting in one arthrodesis and one gastrocnemius transfer for wound closure. CONCLUSION: In general, patients were satisfied with the postoperative result. Outcome was comparable to patients after primary TKA in the literature. However, serious complications need to be taken into account. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Are current foot- and ankle outcome measures appropriate for the evaluation of treatment for osteoarthritis of the ankle?: Evaluation of ceiling effects in foot- and ankle outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Many PROMs used for evaluation of ankle osteoarthritis are not validated for this purpose. We hypothesize that frequently used PROMs have an early ceiling or floor effect. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from patients with ankle osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2013. At baseline visit patients completed the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, the Ankle Osteoarthritis Score, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scale, a visual analogue scale for pain and quality of life. Outcomes were analyzed for floor or ceiling effects. RESULTS: 197 patients were included in the study. A floor effect was present for the AOFAS and VAS for pain in all groups. Floor and ceiling effect are absent for the FAOS outcome measure for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should be aware of floor or ceiling effects when evaluating treatment using patient reported outcome measures. The FAOS outcome measure lacks early ceiling or floor effects.

The Effectiveness of High-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Ultrasound-Guided Needling Versus Arthroscopic Surgery in the Management of Chronic Calcific Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this comprehensive quantitative review of the treatment of calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff were to investigate if there is a sustainable positive effect on outcomes after treatment with high-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) or ultrasound (US)-guided needling and to compare these results with those of treatment with arthroscopic surgery. METHODS: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to conduct this review. A systematic literature search was conducted in December 2014 to identify relevant clinical articles in peer-reviewed journals with at least 6 months' follow-up. Each article was scored using the Coleman Methodology Score. The primary endpoints were functional outcome and radiologic change in the size of the calcific deposit. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included (1,258 shoulders). The mean Coleman Methodology Score for the included studies was 77.1 ± 9.1. Overall, good to excellent clinical outcomes were achieved after treatment with either high-energy ESWT, US-guided needling, or arthroscopic surgery, with an improvement in the Constant-Murley score ranging between 26.3 and 41.5 points after 1 year. No severe side effects or long-term complications were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can achieve good to excellent clinical outcomes after high-energy ESWT, US-guided needling, and arthroscopy for calcific tendinopathy of the shoulder. Side effects and post-treatment complications should be taken into account when a decision is being made for each individual patient. Physicians should consider high-energy ESWT and US-guided needling as minimally invasive treatment options when primary conservative treatment fails. Arthroscopy can safely be used as a very effective but more invasive secondary option, although the extent of deposit removal and the additional benefit of subacromial decompression remain unclear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I, II, and IV studies.

Longterm outcome of 886 posterior malleolar fractures: A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to review the current data on the long-term outcomes of posterior malleolar fractures, with special emphasis on the role of the type of treatment, surgical approach, and reduction and internal fixation. METHODS: The search was limited to skeletally mature patients. Major databases were searched from 1978 to 2014 to identify studies relating to functional outcome, subjective outcome, and radiographic evaluation at least 2 years after either surgical or conservative treatment of posterior malleolar fractures. RESULTS: Of 68 initially relevant studies, 19 met our inclusion criteria. A total of 886 fractures were identified in 885 patients. The mean sample size-weighted follow-up period was 3.7 years. Comparable results are achieved when comparing open reduction and internal fixation to conservative treatment for posterior malleolar fractures. DISCUSSION: Current consensus suggests posterior malleolar fragments comprising of >25% of the distal tibial plafond as seen on a true lateral radiograph and fragments with more than 2mm dislocation require open reduction and internal fixation of the fragment. The current consensus on treatment of posterior malleolar fractures is neither supported nor disapproved by the available evidence.

Static progressive versus dynamic splinting for posttraumatic elbow stiffness: a systematic review of 232 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The elbow is prone to stiffness after trauma. To regain functional elbow motion, several conservative and surgical treatment options are available. Nonoperative treatment includes physical therapy, intra-articular injections with corticosteroids, and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program. The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive review of the literature to evaluate the best current evidence for nonoperative treatment options for posttraumatic elbow stiffness. METHODS: We performed a search of all studies on nonoperative treatment for elbow stiffness in human adults. All articles describing nonoperative treatment of elbow stiffness, written in the English, German, French or Dutch language, including human adult patients and with the functional outcome reported were included in this study. RESULTS: Eight studies (including 232 patients) met our eligibility criteria and were included for data analysis and pooling. These studies included one randomized controlled trial and seven retrospective cohort studies. Static progressive splinting was evaluated in 160 patients. The average pre-splinting range of motion of all elbows was 72°, which improved by 36° after splinting to an average post-splinting arc of motion of 108°. Dynamic splinting was evaluated in 72 patients with an average pre-splinting range of motion of 63°. The average improvement was 37° to an average post-splinting arc of motion of 100°. CONCLUSIONS: Both dynamic orthoses and static progressive splinting show good results for the treatment of elbow stiffness, regardless of etiology. The choice for one treatment over the other is based on the preference of the surgeon and patient. We recommend to continue nonoperative treatment with dynamic or static bracing for 12 months or until patients stop making progression in range of elbow motion.