One-stage revision surgery provides infection eradication and satisfying outcomes for infected knee arthroplasty in selected patients.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of one-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in terms of eradication of the infection, improvement of pain, and knee function. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2016, 20 patients underwent one-stage revision TKA for the treatment of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Inclusion criteria were: patients nonimmunocompromised with minimal or moderate bone loss, known organisms with known sensitivity. Assessment included clinical signs of infection eradication, range of motion, Knee Society clinical rating score, visual analog scale pain score, and radiographic assessment. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 6.2 years (range, 2-10 years), none of the patients had signs suggesting recurrent infection. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to preoperative values (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage revision surgery provides infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes for infected knee arthroplasty in selected patients. EXPERT OPINION: One-stage revision knee arthroplasty is a valuable resource to approach PJIs in selected patients whose infecting micro-organism and sensitivity are determined before surgery. In order to succeed strict inclusion criteria should be applied, as only non-immunocompromised patients with healthy soft tissues with minimal or moderate bone loss are eligible for this procedure.

Two-stage revision shoulder prosthesis vs. permanent articulating antibiotic spacer in the treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infections.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) represent a serious complication following shoulder arthroplasty. No consensus exists regarding the optimal option. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to compare the outcomes of 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty and those of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation with regards to eradication of the infection, improvement of pain and shoulder function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients treated for an infected shoulder arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed after a mean follow-up of 8 years (range, 2-10 years). Nineteen underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation and 11 underwent 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 68.8 years. Assessment included Constant-Murley score, visual analog scale pain score, objective examination, patient subjective satisfaction score as well as standard radiographs. RESULTS: At the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to preoperative values (p<0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. No statistically significant differences were reported between the two groups concerning Constant-Murley and VAS scores, while average forward flexion and abduction were significantly higher in patients undergoing 2-stage revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical procedures provided infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes. Functional results were superior in patients treated with revision shoulder prosthesis, although a higher rate of complication was reported in this cohort of patients, thus suggesting the use of permanent spacer in high-risk or low-demanding elderly patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective case-control study.

A new perspective on current prosthetic joint infection classifications: introducing topography as a key factor affecting treatment strategy.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a relatively frequent and devastating complication following prosthetic joint implantation. Several classification systems have been presented by various authors and are routinely used in clinical practice to help in early diagnosis and treatment. The most widely accepted classifications of periprosthetic infections rely on the timing of clinical presentation. Unfortunately, these schemes possess important shortcomings which limit their usefulness in clinical practice, as data reported in literature are contrasting, with success rate ranging from 60 to 80%, irrespectively of prosthetic infection timing. An attempt is made by us to update the current knowledge on PJIs by looking them from a different perspective, introducing a topographic principle in their classification. Our approach is based on the theory that identifying the exact location of the bacterial colonization may allow to decide whether to conservatively treat the patient or to perform a more radical intervention. The aim is to improve the understanding of the aetiology of this serious complication, lead to the appropriate treatment strategy according to the stage of the disease thus enhancing the outcomes of surgical management. Such a strategy, if widely accepted, could guide research studies on the management of PJIs. The availability of investigations like scintigraphy could aid in identifying pathogenetic processes and their exact location, which may be missed on conventional radiographs, and could enable orthopaedic surgeons to have a better understanding of PJI patterns.

Management of periprosthetic shoulder infections with the use of a permanent articulating antibiotic spacer.

INTRODUCTION: Management of periprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) still remains challenging. We conducted a retrospective case study to assess the outcomes of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation in a cohort of elderly, low-demanding patients. We hypothesized that in patients with low functional demands seeking pain relief with chronic PSIs, treatment with a definitive articulating antibiotic spacer would lead to satisfying results concerning eradication of the infection, improvement of pain, and improving shoulder function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 patients underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation for the treatment of an infected shoulder arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 70.2 years. Patients were assessed pre-operatively with functional assessment including Constant-Murley score, and objective examination comprehending ROM, visual analog scale pain score, and patient subjective satisfaction (excellent, good, satisfied, or unsatisfied) score. Radiographs were taken to examine signs of loosening, and change in implant positioning. RESULTS: At the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to pre-operative values (p < 0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. In one case, glenoid osteolysis was reported, which did not affect the clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In selected elderly patients with low functional demands seeking pain relief with infected shoulder arthroplasty, definitive management with a cement spacer is a viable treatment option that helps in eradicating shoulder infection and brings satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, Level IV.

ICS classification system of infected osteosynthesis: Long-term results.

The best treatment strategy for infected osteosyntheses is still debated. While hardware removal or eventually early device exchange may be necessary in most of the cases, temporary hardware retention until fracture healing can be a valid alternative option in others. Aim of the present study is to report the long-term results of 215 patients with infected osteosyntheses, treated according to the ICS (Infection, Callus, Stability) classification in two Italian hospitals. Patients classified as ICS Type 1 (N = 83) feature callus progression and hardware stability, in spite of the presence of infection; these patients were treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy coupled with local debridement in 18.1% of the cases, and no hardware removal until bone healing. Type 2 patients (N = 75) are characterized by the presence of infection and hardware stability, but no callus progression; these patients were treated as Type 1 patients, but with additional callus stimulation therapies. Type 3 patients (N = 57), showing infection, no callus progression and loss of hardware stability, underwent removal and exchange of the fixation device. Considering only the initial treatment, performed according to the ICS classification, at a minimum 5 years follow up, 89.3% achieved bone healing and 93.5% did not show infection recurrence. The ICS classification appears as a useful and reliable tool to help standardizing the decision-making process in treating infected osteosynthesis with the most conservative approach.

Efficacy of antibacterial-loaded coating in an in vivo model of acutely highly contaminated implant.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the ability of DAC®, a fast resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel coating, to prevent acute bacterial colonization in an in vivo model of an intra-operatively highly contaminated implant. METHODS: A histocompatibility study was performed in 10 adult New Zealand rabbits. Then, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus were inoculated in the femur of 30 adult New Zealand rabbits at the time of intra-medullary nailing; vancomycin-loaded DAC® coated nails were compared to controls regarding local and systemic infection development. RESULTS: Histocompatibility study showed no detrimental effect of DAC® hydrogel on bone tissue after 12 weeks from implant. After seven days from implant, none of the rabbits receiving vancomycin-loaded DAC® nail showed positive blood cultures, compared to all the controls; vancomycin-loaded DAC® coating was associated with local bacterial load reduction ranging from 72 to 99 %, compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin-loaded DAC® coating is able to significantly reduce bacterial colonization in an animal model of an intra-operatively highly contaminated implant, without local or general side effect.

Cementless modular intramedullary nail without bone-on-bone fusion as a salvage procedure in chronically infected total knee prosthesis: long-term results.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate long-term results of two-stage cementless intramedullary nailing without achieving bone-to-bone fusion for treating chronically infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Thirty-eight patients treated according to the same protocol were retrospectively evaluated for clinical, functional, laboratory and radiological outcomes. RESULTS: Spacer exchange was necessary for infection persistence in one case. At a minimum two year follow-up, 34 patients (89.5%) showed no infection recurrence; among these 34 patients, 29 (85.3%) reported no or moderate pain [visual analogue scale (VAS) ≤3]; mild to moderate handicap (Lequesne Algofunctional Index < 7.5) was observed in 18 patients (52.9%). No patient underwent revision for aseptic loosening, and no nail breakage was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage cementless intramedullary nailing without achieving bone-to-bone fusion is a viable option for treating chronically infected TKA in selected, complex cases.

Preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. Long-term results.

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected hip prosthesis and different interim spacers have been proposed. In recent years, antibiotic-loaded preformed spacers have become available on the market. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term results of two-stage revision with preformed spacers and uncemented hip prosthesis for the treatment of septic hip prosthesis. From 2000 to 2010, 183 consecutive patients underwent two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis, with a same protocol, including preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and a cementless modular hip revision prosthesis and four to six weeks antibiotic administration. Clinical and radiologic assessment at a minimum follow-up of two years was performed. At a minimum two years follow-up, 10 patients (5.4%) had had an infection recurrence, four (2.2%) an aseptic loosening and four more required partial revision of the modular components of the prosthesis, because of hip instability/dislocation; 21 patients died or were lost to follow-up. Considering all the reasons for revision, survivorship at eleven years was 93.9%. Harris Hip Score improved from 29.1 ± 14.6 pre-operatively to 41.1 ± 15.9 after spacer implant and 81.7 ± 17.6 after hip revision. The main complications after spacer implant included: spacer dislocation (16.4%), intra-operative femoral fractures (2.7%), and thromboembolism (2.1%). Complications after hip revision were: instability/dislocation (4,3%), intra-operative femoral fractures (1.6%), and thromboembolism (3.3%). Two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis with preformed antibiotic-loaded spacers and cementless hip prosthesis provides satisfactory long-term results, with reduced complications.

What treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection? Results from a multicentre retrospective series.

PURPOSE: Controversy still exists as to the best surgical treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infections. The aim of this multi-institutional study was to review a continuous retrospectiveseries of patients treated in four European centres and to assess the respective eradication rate of various treatment approaches. METHODS: Forty-four patients were available for this retrospective follow-up evaluation. Functional and clinical evaluation of treatment for infection was performed using the Constant-Murley score, visual analogue scale and patient satisfaction Neer score. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum leucocyte count and C-reactive protein were measured and shoulder X-ray examination performed prior to surgery and at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 41 months (range 24­98),42 of 44 patients (95.5%) showed no signs of infection recurrence/persistence. Comparable eradication rates were observed after resection arthroplasty (100%; 6/6), two-stage revision (17/17) or permanent antibiotic-loaded spacer implant (93.3%; 14/15). No patient was treated by one-stage revision. On average, both functional and pain scores improved significantly; the worst joint function was observed after resection arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis conducted on the largest published series of patients to date shows comparable infection eradication rates after two-stage revision, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant for the treatment of septic shoulder prosthesis.

Two-stage revision surgery with preformed spacers and cementless implants for septic hip arthritis: a prospective, non-randomized cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data on two-stage revision surgery for deep infection after septic hip arthritis are limited and inconsistent. This study presents the medium-term results of a new, standardized two-stage arthroplasty with preformed hip spacers and cementless implants in a consecutive series of adult patients with septic arthritis of the hip treated according to a same protocol. METHODS: Nineteen patients (20 hips) were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized cohort study between 2000 and 2008. The first stage comprised femoral head resection, debridement, and insertion of a preformed, commercially available, antibiotic-loaded cement hip spacer. After eradication of infection, a cementless total hip arthroplasty was implanted in the second stage. Patients were assessed for infection recurrence, pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) and hip joint function (Harris Hip score). RESULTS: The mean time between first diagnosis of infection and revision surgery was 5.8 ± 9.0 months; the average duration of follow up was 56.6 (range, 24 - 104) months; all 20 hips were successfully converted to prosthesis an average 22 ± 5.1 weeks after spacer implantation. Reinfection after total hip joint replacement occurred in 1 patient. The mean VAS pain score improved from 48 (range, 35 - 84) pre-operatively to 18 (range, 0 - 38) prior to spacer removal and to 8 (range, 0 - 15) at the last follow-up assessment after prosthesis implantation. The average Harris Hip score improved from 27.5 before surgery to 61.8 between the two stages to 92.3 at the final follow-up assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory outcomes can be obtained with two-stage revision hip arthroplasty using preformed spacers and cementless implants for prosthetic hip joint infections of various etiologies.

Staphylococcal IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections.

Delayed orthopedic joint prosthesis infections (DOJP-Is) due to staphylococci frequently result in prosthetic revision. Specific and noninvasive diagnostic tests are unavailable, and DOJP-Is are commonly diagnosed at advanced stages of disease. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed to detect serum antibodies against staphylococcal slime polysaccharide antigens. Using a cutoff of 0.35 ELISA units, the test showed a specificity of 95.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.4 to 98.7%) and a sensitivity of 89.7% (71.5 to 97.3%) on a sample of 90 individuals.

Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different?

BACKGROUND: The few available studies directly comparing aseptic and septic joint revision surgery report conflicting results. We investigated whether two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis with a preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer and an uncemented prosthesis provides hip function and quality of life similar to those provided by aseptic revision surgery in the medium term, as well as the associated direct hospital costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the hip function (Harris hip score) and quality of life (WOMAC and SF-12 scores) of 80 patients who underwent one-stage revision for aseptic loosening (Group A, 40 patients) or two-stage revision for septic total hip prostheses (Group S, 40 patients). Patients were matched for gender, age, and bone loss. A preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer was used for two-stage revision, and uncemented modular prostheses were implanted at revision in both groups. The minimum follow-up was 2 years (average 4 years; range 2-6 years). RESULTS: We found no difference in infection recurrence or aseptic loosening rate in the two groups. Average Harris hip score increased similarly in both groups: from 19.1 to 74.0 in Group A versus 15.0-71.2 in Group S. Patient-reported quality-of-life questionnaires (SF-12 and WOMAC) at last follow-up were similar postoperatively, but the complication rate for Group S was twice that of Group A (20.8 versus 10%). Mean overall hospital-related costs of two-stage procedures were 2.2 times greater than those for aseptic revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage revision for infected hip prostheses, using a preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and uncemented revision prosthesis, offers a success rate comparable to noninfected revisions in the medium term but is associated with a higher complication rate and costs.

Long-stem versus short-stem preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty.

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected hip prostheses. In recent years short and long stem antibiotic-loaded preformed spacers have become available on the market. The aim of this prospective, comparative study was to assess the safety and efficacy of long stem versus short stem preformed spacers. From year 2000 to 2007 102 consecutive patients underwent two-stage revision of septic hip replacement with a preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and a cementless modular hip revision prosthesis. Patients were divided in two groups: Group L (long stem spacer) (N=60) and Group S (short stem) (N=42) and compared. No systemic toxicity due to local antibiotic release and no spacer breakage were observed in either group. At spacer removal, no statistically significant difference was observed in infection recurrence. After revision, at a mean 4 years follow-up, 2 patients in Group L and 2 in Group S showed infection recurrence. The Harris Hip Score improved in both groups, compared to post spacer implant values: 79.6 + or - 15.4 versus 38.4 + or - 14.5 in Group L (p < 0.0001) and 82.3 + or - 14.4 versus 44.8 + or - 16.6 in Group S (p < 0.0001); the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Short and long stem spacers provide comparable low infection recurrence rate and clinical outcome, with negligible risk of breakage and toxicity.

Celecoxib versus indomethacin in the prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty.

A cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibitor (indomethacin) and a selective COX-2 inhibitor (celecoxib) were compared in the prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. In 250 patients receiving indomethacin and in 150 patients receiving celecoxib for 20 days after surgery, an overall incidence of heterotopic ossification of 17.5% and 14.3% was seen, respectively (difference not statistically significant: P > .05). No grade III or IV ossifications were seen in either group. Twenty-one patients in the indomethacin group (8.4%) and 3 patients in the celecoxib group (2.0%) required treatment discontinuation, because of side effects (P < .05). Celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, shows the same efficacy as indomethacin in the prevention of heterotopic ossification after hip prosthesis with significantly fewer side effects.