Management of Modular Mega-Implant Infection of the Lower Extremity.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Revision arthroplasty involving mega-implants is associated with a high complication rate. In particular, infection is a serious complication of revision arthroplasty of hip and knee joints and has been reported to have an average rate of 18%, and for mega-implants, the range is from 3 to 36%. This study was designed to analyze the strategy of treatment of infection of mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities in our patient cohort, particularly the management of chronic infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study that focused on the results of the treatment of periprosthetic infections of mega-implants of the lower extremities. We identified 26 cases with periprosthetic infections out of 212 patients with 220 modular mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities who were treated in our department between September 2013 and September 2019. As a reinfection or recurrence, we defined clinical and microbiological recurrences of local periprosthetic joint infections after an antibiotic-free period. RESULTS: In this study, 200 cases out of 220 were investigated. The average follow-up period was approximately 18 months (6 months to 6 years). Endoprosthesis infections after implantation of mega-implants occurred in 26 cases (13%). This group comprised 2 early infections (within the first 4 weeks) and 24 chronic infections (between 10 weeks and 6 years after implantation). Nineteen cases out of the identified 26 cases with infection (73.1%) belong to the group of patients who were operated on due to major bone loss following explantation of endoprosthetic components due to previous periprosthetic joint infection. The remaining seven cases with infection comprised four cases following management of periprosthetic fracture, two cases following treatment of aseptic loosening, and one case following tumor resection. All infections were treated surgically. In all cases, the duration of continuous antibiotic treatment did not exceed 6 weeks. Both cases with early infection were treated by exchanging polyethylene inlays and performing debridement with lavage (two cases). In two (7.7%) cases with chronic infection, one-stage surgery was performed. In all remaining cases with chronic infection (22 cases; 84.6%), explantation of all components and temporary implantation of cement spacers were carried out prior to reimplantation. CONCLUSION: There is still no gold standard therapeutic regimen for the management of periprosthetic infection of mega-implants, though radical surgical debridement and lavage accompanied by systemic antibiotic therapy are the most important therapeutic tools in all cases of periprosthetic infections, regardless of the time of onset. Further studies are needed to standardize management strategies of such infections. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for compromises to be made based on the particular condition of the individual.