RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We report a rare case of an infected revision total knee replacement as a result of a Lactobacillus species infection. Lactobacillus infections have been associated with prolonged broad-spectrum antibiotic use. This can have implications in revision surgery, especially when patients have been on previous long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy. CASE PRESENTATION: An 81-year-old British man with a previous history of complex revision knee arthroplasty for infection presented with a hot, swollen knee joint. He had previously been on long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy. Aspiration of the knee joint yielded a culture of Lactobacillus species. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty, especially for previous infection, the presence of common and uncommon bacterial species must be excluded and eradicated before further surgical intervention.
RESUMO
UNLABELLED: The Exeter Universal hip (Stryker Inc., Newbury, UK) has reported survival rates of 91.74% at 12 years in all patients with reoperation as an endpoint. However, its performance in younger patients has not been fully established. We reviewed survivorship and the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this hip system implanted in 107 patients (130 hips) 50 years old or younger at the time of surgery. The mean age at surgery was 42 years. The minimum followup was 10 years (mean, 12.5 years; range, 10-17 years) with no patients lost to followup. Twelve hips had been revised. Of these, nine had aseptic loosening of the acetabular component and one cup was revised for focal lysis and pain. One hip was revised for recurrent dislocation and one joint underwent revision for infection. Radiographs demonstrated 14 (12.8%) of the remaining acetabular prostheses were loose but no femoral components were loose. Survivorship of both stem and cup from all causes was 92.6% at an average of 12.5 years. Survivorship of the stem from all causes was 99% and no stem was revised for aseptic loosening. The Exeter Universal stem performed well, even in the young, high-demand patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.