Rifampicin does not reduce moxifloxacin concentrations at the site of infection and may not improve treatment outcome of a one-stage exchange surgery protocol of implant-associated osteomyelitis lesions in a porcine model.

We aimed to evaluate moxifloxacin steady-state concentrations in infected bone and soft tissue and to explore the additive microbiological and pathological treatment effect of rifampicin to standard moxifloxacin treatment of implant-associated osteomyelitis (IAO). 16 pigs were included. On Day 0, IAO was induced in the proximal tibia using a susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strain. On Day 7, the pigs underwent one-stage exchange surgery of the IAO lesions and were randomized to receive seven days of intravenous antibiotic treatment of either rifampicin combined with moxifloxacin or moxifloxacin monotherapy. On Day 14, microdialysis was applied for continuous sampling (8 h) of moxifloxacin concentrations. Microbiological, macroscopical pathology, and histopathological analyses were performed postmortem. Steady-state moxifloxacin area under the concentration-time curve was lower in the combination therapy group in plasma (total) and subcutaneous tissue compartments (infected and noninfected) (p < 0.04), while no differences were found in bone compartments. No additional treatment effect of rifampicin to moxifloxacin treatment was found (p = 0.57). Conclusive, additive rifampicin treatment does not reduce moxifloxacin concentrations at the infection site. Rifampicin treatment may not be necessary in a one-stage exchange treatment of IAO. However, our sample size and treatment period may have been too small and short to reveal true clinical differences.

The Practice Patterns of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons for the Management of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has considerable variation. In order to better capture current preferences for the management of PJI, this study sought to poll the current members of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) first to characterize the distribution of practice patterns. METHODS: There were 32 questions in an online survey distributed to members of AAHKS. The questions were multiple choice regarding the management of PJI for TKA. There were 844 out of 2,752 members who completed the survey (response rate of 31%). RESULTS: Most of the members were in private practice (50%) compared to 28% being in an academic setting. On average, members were performing between 6 to 20 PJI cases per year. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty was performed in over 75% of the cases with either a cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) primary femoral component used in over 50% of the cases and 62% using an all-polyethylene tibial implant. Most of the members were using vancomycin and tobramycin. Typically, 2 to 3 grams of antibiotics were added per bag of cement regardless of the cement type. When indicated, amphotericin was the most often-used antifungal. Post-operative management had major variability with range of motion, brace use, and weight-bearing restrictions. CONCLUSION: There was variability in the responses from the members of AAHKS, but there was a preference toward performing a two-stage exchange arthroplasty with an articulating spacer using a metal femoral component and an all-polyethylene liner.

Is a preoperative pathogen detection a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip?

BACKGROUND: A preoperative pathogen detection is considered a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to most guidelines. This study compares patients with and without preoperative pathogen detection undergoing one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip. The authors put up the hypothesis that a preoperative pathogen detection is no prerequisite in selected cases undergoing one-stage exchange. METHODS: 30 consecutive patients with PJI of the hip, treated with one-stage exchange, between 2011 and 2021, were retrospectively included. Mean age was 70 years and mean follow-up 2.1 ± 1.8 years. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society. One-stage exchange was performed in (1) chronic PJI longer than 4 weeks, (2) well-retained bone condition, (3) absence of multiple prior revisions for PJI (≤ 2) with absence of difficult-to-treat pathogens in the past, and (4) necessity/preference for early mobility due to comorbidities/age. RESULTS: One-stage exchange was performed in 20 patients with and in 10 without a preoperative pathogen detection. Age (71 years, 68 years, p = 0.519), sex (50% and 30% males, p = 0.440), American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (2.2, 2.4, p = 0.502), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3, 4, p = 0.530) did not differ among the two groups. No significant differences were noted concerning preoperative CRP (15 mg/l, 43 mg/l, p = 0.228), synovial cell count (15.990/nl, 5.308/nl, p = 0.887), radiological signs of loosening (55%, 50%, p = 0.999), and intraoperative histopathology. Except a higher rate of coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%, 20%, p = 0.019) in patients with a preoperative pathogen detection, no significant differences in pathogen spectrum were identified among groups. Revision for PJI recurrence was performed in one patient with an initial preoperative pathogen detection (3.3%). Additional revisions were performed for dislocation in two and postoperative hematoma in one patient. Revision rate for both septic and aseptic causes (p = 0.999), stay in hospital (16 and 15 days, p = 0.373) and modified Harris Hip Score (60, 71, p = 0.350) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with and without a preoperative pathogen detection did not show significant differences concerning baseline characteristics, clinical and functional outcomes at 2 years. An absent preoperative pathogen detection is no absolute contraindication for one-stage exchange in chronic PJI, if involving good bone quality and absence of multiple prior revisions.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa prosthetic joint-infection outcomes: Prospective, observational study on 43 patients.

Objectives: Analysis the outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and of their clinical and microbiological characteristics, surgical strategies and antibiotic treatments. Methods: Monocenter cohort study in a Bone-and-Joint-Infection Referral Center (08/2004 to 10/2018) including all consecutive P. aeruginosa PJIs. Data were extracted from the prospective database, including the following events: relapses, new PJIs, related deaths. Results: Median [IQR]: among the 43 patients included (28 females; 72 [63-80] years old; 27 hip, 15 knee, and 1 shoulder PJIs), 29 (67%) had underlying comorbidities, 12 (28%) had previously been treated for another PJI and 9 (21%) had undergone previous surgeries for their P. aeruginosa PJI. Eleven (26%) PJIs were polymicrobial, 16 (37%) strains were wild type, 8 (19%) ciprofloxacin-resistant. PJIs were classified as late chronic (n = 33), early postoperative (n = 9) or acute hematogenous infection (n = 1). Forty patients underwent surgery: 27 one-stage and 5 two-stage exchanges, 3 debridement and implant retention, and 5 other surgical strategies. Antibiotic treatments were: 29 received 41 [37-43] days of combination therapy (IV anti-pseudomonal ß-lactam and 3-5 days of amikacin, then ß-lactam and oral ciprofloxacin), followed by oral ciprofloxacin for a total of 12 weeks; 10 received only IV antibiotics for 83 [77-86] days, including 37 [32-46] days of combination therapy; 49 days of ceftazidime alone for 1. During follow-up lasting 33 [24-64.5] months, 2 relapses, 3 new PJIs, and 2 related deaths occurred. Thirty-three (82%) patients and 93% of those managed with one-stage exchange experienced no event. Conclusion: Outcomes of our cohort's P. aeruginosa PJIs-predominantly monomicrobial, chronic, ciprofloxacin-susceptible, treated with one-stage exchange and prolonged IV antibiotics-were 82% favorable.

A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study of Periprosthetic Hip Infection Treated by one-stage Method Including Cases With Bone Graft Reconstruction.

Purpose: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that can affect hip arthroplasty. Its treatment is extremely difficult, and issues regarding the optimal treatment remain unanswered. This study intended to show the effectiveness of the one-stage treatment of PJI. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study performed from July 2014- August 2018. All patients with suspected PJI were included. Major and minor criteria developed by the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (ICPJI) was used to define infection. Laboratory tests and image exams were performed, and all patients were followed for at least 2 years. Outcomes: Success rate (2018 ICPJI definition to success) in treatment of PJI using one-stage revision method. Clinical and functional outcomes defined by Harris Hip Score (HHS). Results: Thirty-one patients were screened and 18 analyzed. 69.85 ± 9.76 years was the mean age. Mean follow-up time was 63.84 ± 18.55 months. Ten patients had acetabular defects and required bone graft reconstruction. Sixteen patients were classified as Tier 1, 1 as Tier 3D, and as 1 Tier 3E. Almost 90% of patients submitted to one-stage revision with acetabulum graft reconstruction were free of infection. The overall infection survival rate was 78.31±6.34 months. Candida albicans and sinus tract were statistically significant in univariate Cox's analysis. The predictor of one-stage revision surgery failure that remained final Cox's regression model was C. albicans (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.47). Conclusion: Treatment through one-stage revision surgery associated with 6 months of antimicrobial is a viable option with acceptable results even when bone graft reconstruction is necessary. C. albicans was a strong predictor of failure in this cohort.

High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed. RESULTS: At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure. CONCLUSION: Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386-393.

High-Dose Antibiotic Cement Spacers Independently Increase the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury in Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) involves 2-stage exchange with placement of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer (ACS). Conflicting evidence exists on the role of ACS in development of acute kidney injury (AKI) after first-stage surgery. In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the incidence of AKI between the first-stage of a planned 2-stage exchange vs 1-stage exchange. This study design isolates the effect of the ACS in otherwise identical treatment groups. METHODS: The primary outcome variable was AKI, defined as a creatinine ≥1.5 times baseline or an increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL. Risk factors for AKI were evaluated using bivariate statistical tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent the first stage of a planned 2-stage exchange were significantly more likely to develop AKI compared with the 1-stage exchange group (15 [22.7%] vs 4 [6.6%], P = .011). On multivariable regression analysis, ACS placement (odds ratio 7.48, 95% confidence limit 1.77-31.56) and chronic kidney disease (odds ratio 3.84, 95% confidence limit 1.22-12.08) were independent risk factors for AKI. CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that high-dose antibiotic cement spacers for treatment of PJI are an independent risk factor for AKI. Therefore, efforts to minimize nephrotoxicity should be employed in revision for PJI when possible.

What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

PURPOSE: Re-operation after septic failure of a one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is a highly challenging procedure with concerns over residual bone stock, soft tissues, and stability. The associated changes in microbiology in cases of reinfection are still largely unknown. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis was performed of all patients treated at our tertiary institution between 2001 and 2017 who developed reinfection after a one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. Prerequisites for inclusion were a certain diagnosis of PJI according to the ICM criteria and a minimum follow-up of three years. Data on comorbidities, previous surgical interventions, microbiological findings at the time of the initial one-stage exchange and at the time of reinfection, detection methods, and antibiotic resistance patterns were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Reinfection occurred after a mean time interval of 27.7 months (SD ± 33.9, range 1-165). Ten types of bacteria were found that were not present before the one-stage exchange. The causative pathogen remained identical in 22 patients (33%) and additional microorganisms were detected in ten patients (15%). Half of the reinfections were however due to (a) completely different microorganism(s). A significant increase in the number of PJIs on the basis of high-virulent (23 vs 30, p = 0.017) and difficult-to-treat bacteria (13 vs 24, p = 0.035) was found. CONCLUSION: The present study provides a novel insight into the microbiological changes following septic failure after one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. A higher prevalence of more difficult-to-treat bacteria might increase the complexity of subsequent procedures. Also, a longer follow-up of these patients than previously suggested seems in order.

Septic Failure After One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: Microbiological Implications.

BACKGROUND: The microbiological implications of septic failure after 1-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip remain unclear. METHODS: Information was gathered on comorbidities, previous procedures, preoperative and postoperative microbiology results, methods of detection, and antibiotic resistance patterns, for all patients, who developed septic failure after 1-stage exchange for PJI of the hip performed at our institution during 2001-2017. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were identified. Septic failure was diagnosed a mean of 1.7 (standard deviation 2.3, range 0-11.8) years later. Although the spectrum of microorganisms was similar to preoperative, in the majority of patients (55%), the initial microorganism(s) was (were) replaced by (a) totally different microorganism(s). Overall, there was a decrease in the number of polymicrobial PJIs. The number of patients with high virulent microorganisms decreased significantly from 52 to 36 (P = .034). The number of PJIs due to gram-negative pathogens remained similar (11 vs 14, P = .491). The number of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci, fluoroquinolone-resistant streptococci, enterococci, and fungi changed from 8 to 15, 0 to 2, 7 to 3, and 1 to 2, respectively, but these changes did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The majority of reinfections is caused by different infecting bacteria, hence it is essential to perform a new diagnostic workup and not base treatment decisions (solely) on historical cultures. We were furthermore unable to irrefutably prove that, from a microbiological point of view, septic failure after 1-stage exchange comes with increased challenges. Given the time interval to failure, we propose that a longer follow-up of these patients is needed, than previously suggested.

High re-revision rate following one-stage exchange for streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyse the outcome of 1-stage exchange in the management of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip at a single hospital. METHODS: We identified 30 patients with a streptococcal PJI of the hip who had been treated by 1-stage exchange at our hospital between 2002 and 2017. Postoperative complications and the need for any subsequent re-revision for infection or other reasons were analysed. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was evaluated at final follow-up. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 8.2 years (SD 4.1). The overall re-revision rate for any reason was 53% (16/30) at a mean 5.3 years (SD 0.68 years). Re-revision for infection was 20% (6/30) at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.74 years). All re-revisions for PJI (6/6; 100%) were for relapse of the streptococcal infection. At final follow-up, the mean HHS was 68 points (SD 20). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of re-revision after 1-stage exchange for streptococcal PJI is high. Eradication of a streptococcal PJI of the hip remains challenging. Further extensive and comparative studies between 1-and 2-stage exchange are encouraged.

Favourable outcomes of repeat one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.

AIMS: One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of eight repeat septic revisions (25%) developed a further infection-related failure, and the five-year infection-free survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57 to 92). Nine (28%) underwent a further all-cause revision and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 74% (95% CI 52 to 88). Neither the MSIS classification of the host status (p = 0.423) nor the limb status (p = 0.366) was significantly associated with further infection-related failure. CONCLUSION: Repeat one-stage exchange for PJI in THA is associated with a favourable five-year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival. Notably, the rate of infection control is encouraging when compared with the reported rates after repeat two-stage exchange. The results can be used to counsel patients and help clinicians make informed decisions about treatment. With the available number of patients, further infection-related failure was not associated with the MSIS host or limb status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):27-33.

Intra-wound vancomycin powder for the eradication of periprosthetic joint infection after debridement and implant exchange: experimental study in a rat model.

BACKGROUND: Intra-wound vancomycin powder (VP) has been used in clinical practice to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary knee/hip arthroplasty. The role of intra-wound VP in the setting of debridement and implant exchange after PJI remains undefined. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of intra-wound VP in the control of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection after debridement and implant exchange. METHODS: PJI modeling by knee prosthesis implantation and MRSA inoculation, debridement and implant exchange were performed in Wistar rats successively to mimic the one-stage exchange arthroplasty of PJI patients. Two weeks of systemic vancomycin (SV) or/and intraoperative intra-wound VP of single dosage were applied after revision surgery. RESULTS: No post-surgery deaths, incision complications and signs of drug toxicity were observed. The microbial counts of SV or intra-wound VP group were significantly reduced compared with the control group, while bacteria were still detected on the bone, soft-tissue and prosthesis. The elimination of bacterial counts, along with improvement of tissue inflammation and serum inflammatory markers, were observed in the rats with SV plus intra-wound VP. Serum levels of vancomycin in all groups were lower than that of causing nephrotoxicity, while no statistic difference was observed in the serum biochemical marker among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-wound VP is effective after debridement and implant exchange in our current rat PJI model. Neither SV nor intra-wound VP alone could eradicate the bacteria within a two-weeks treatment course, while SV plus intra-wound VP could eliminate the MRSA infection, without notable hepatic or renal toxicity and any incision complications.

Resection of the proximal femur during one-stage revision for infected hip arthroplasty : risk factors and effectiveness.

AIMS: One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. METHODS: In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. RESULTS: Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years' time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. CONCLUSION: Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678-1685.

Cement Loaded With High-Dose Gentamicin and Clindamycin Reduces the Risk of Subsequent Infection After One-Stage Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Exchange for Periprosthetic Infection: A Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement for treating periprosthetic joint infections remains controversial. We hypothesized that the raw rate of surgical site infection (SSI) is lower after using cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin than after using cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin for implant fixation during 1-stage hip and knee revision arthroplasty for infection. METHODS: One hundred seventy-one continuous patients operated by 2 experienced surgeons during a 2-year period were included in the study. All patients were followed for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time. RESULTS: The raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time was significantly lower in the study group (13%) than in the control group (26%) (P = .03) with an odds ratio of 0.42 (P = .03). These SSIs were new infections rather than a recurrence/persistence of the initial infection. CONCLUSION: The cement used in the study group significantly reduced the risk of SSI relative to the cement used in the control group. Routine use of this high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement can be considered during 1-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty for infection.

One-Stage Hip Revision Arthroplasty Using Megaprosthesis in Severe Bone Loss of The Proximal Femur Due to Radiological Diffuse Osteomyelitis.

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.

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

Background: Prosthetic hip infection (PHI) is a disastrous scenario after an arthroplasty. International guidelines contraindicate one-stage exchange arthroplasty for fistulizing chronic prosthetic hip infection (FCPHI), nevertheless few surgical teams, mostly from Europe, support one stage procedure for this indication. Questions/Purposes: Analysis of infection recurrence and implant failure of a series of FCPHIs treated with one stage arthroplasty. Patients and Methods: Sixty-six FCPHIs treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty were prospectively followed up at least 2 years. Clinical, radiological and bacteriological signs suggestive of reinfection were sought, as well as implant failures and PHI related deaths. Results: Thirty-four females and thirty-two males with median age of 69.5 years [61-77] and BMI of 26 kg/m2 [22-31] were included. Fistulae were productive in 50 patients (76%). Staphylococcus was responsible for 45% of PHI and 21% were polymicrobial. Twenty-nine patients (44%) received preoperative antibiotic therapy. After a median 60-month follow-up [35-82], 3 patients (4.5%) presented reinfection (two new infections, one relapse) and 3 patients experienced implant failure (1 femoral fracture, 1 stem breakage, 1 recurrent dislocation). One death was related to PHI. After a minimum of 2 years, the infection control rate was of 95.3% (±0.02). Conclusion: One-stage exchange arthroplasty for FCPHIs showed a good infection control rate similar to that of non-fistulizing PHI. Systematic preoperative microbiological documentation with joint aspiration and, in some specific cases, the use of preoperative antibiotic therapy are among the optimizations accounting for the success of the one-stage arthroplasty. In light of these results, and those of other studies, international recommendations could evolve. Level of Evidence: Descriptive therapeutic prospective cohort study. Level of evidence: IV.

Improved treatment strategies can result in better outcomes following one-stage exchange surgery for MRSA periprosthetic joint infection.

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-PJIs) are rare, with only a few studies reporting the treatment outcomes and even fewer reporting outcomes with one-stage exchange.Aim. This study aims to analyse the outcomes of one-stage exchange in the management of MRSA-PJIs.Methodology. Patients with MRSA-PJI of the hip and knee, who were treated with a one-stage exchange between 2001 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. The final cohort comprised of 29 patients, which included 23 hips and six knees. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1-9 years). Reinfection and complications rates after the one-stage exchange were analysed.Results. Overall infection control could be achieved in 93.1 % (27 out of 29 patients). The overall revision rate was 31.0% (9 patients), with three patients requiring an in-hospital revision (10.3 %). Six patients had to be revised after hospital discharge (20.7 %). Of the two reinfections, one had a growth of MRSA while the other was of methicillin-sensitive Staphyloccocus epidermidis.Conclusion. One-stage exchange surgery using current techniques could improve surgical outcomes with excellent results in the management of MRSA-PJIs.

Infección periprotésica de rodilla ¿influye la estrategia quirúrgica en el resultado funcional? / Total knee arthroplasty infection, what is the best strategy for better functional outcomes?

Resumen: Introducción: La estrategia quirúrgica al enfrentarnos a las infecciones periprotésicas de rodilla sigue siendo controvertida. Los objetivos del tratamiento son la erradicación de la infección, la mejoría del dolor y de la función articular. El manejo quirúrgico incluye el desbridamiento y retención del implante, el recambio protésico en un tiempo o el recambio en dos tiempos. Esta última estrategia quirúrgica se considera el «gold standard¼, alcanzando unas tasas de curación hasta de 80%-100%, aunque poco se ha publicado acerca de los resultados funcionales. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de 65 pacientes, con infección periprotésica de rodilla. En 20 pacientes se realizó un recambio en un tiempo y en 45 pacientes fueron recambios en dos tiempos. Evaluación pre- y postoperatoriamente con la escala modificada HSS. Todos los pacientes fueron tratados con antibioterapia intravenosa, evaluamos la respuesta analítica y clínica para confirmar la erradicación o no de la infección. Resultados: La infección se resolvió en 39 de 65 pacientes, 12 en el grupo de recambio en un tiempo y 27 para el grupo de dos tiempos. Sin diferencia significativa entre los grupos en relación con curación ni resultado funcional. Sin embargo, hay una diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre aquellos pacientes que recibieron tratamiento antibiótico vía oral antes del diagnóstico y aquéllos que no lo recibieron. Conclusión: La tasa de curación es similar en los tratados con recambio en un tiempo y recambio en dos tiempos. No pudimos demostrar superioridad en los resultados funcionales entre los dos grupos.

Abstract: Introduction: Surgical strategy in dealing with periprosthetic knee infections remains controversial. The goals of treatment are to eradicate infection, improve pain and joint function. Surgical management includes implant debridement and retention, prosthetic replacement in one-time, or two-stage replacement. This latest surgical strategy is considered the «gold standard¼, reaching healing rates up to 80%-100%, although little has been published about functional results. Material and methods: Retrospective study of 65 patients with periprosthetic knee infection. In 20 patients a replacement was made in a time and in 45 patients were in two stages. Pre- and post-operative evaluation with the modified HSS scale. All patients were treated with intravenous antibiotherapy, we evaluated the analytical and clinical response to confirm the eradication or not of the infection. Results: The infection was resolved in 39 out of 65 patients, 12 in the replacement group in a time and 27 for the two-stages group. No significant difference between the groups in relation to healing or functional result. However, there is a statistically significant difference between those patients who received oral antibiotic treatment prior to diagnosis and those who did not. Conclusions: The healing rate is similarly treated with replacement in a time and replacement in two times. We were unable to demonstrate superiority in the functional results between the two groups.