Orthoplastics in Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee: Treatment Concept for Composite Soft-tissue Defect with Extensor Apparatus Deficiency.

Introduction: Reconstruction of composite soft-tissue defects with extensor apparatus deficiency in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is challenging. We present a single-centre multidisciplinary orthoplastic treatment concept based on a retrospective outcome analysis over 20 years. Methods and Results: One-hundred sixty patients had PJI after total knee arthroplasty. Plastic surgical reconstruction of a concomitant perigenicular soft-tissue defect was indicated in 47 patients. Of these, six presented with extensor apparatus deficiency. One patient underwent primary arthrodesis and five patients underwent reconstruction of the extensor apparatus. The principle to reconstruct missing tissue 'like with like' was thereby favoured: Two patients with a wide soft-tissue defect received a free anterolateral thigh flap with fascia lata; one patient with a smaller soft-tissue defect received a free sensate, extended lateral arm flap with triceps tendon; and two patients who did not qualify for free flap surgery received a pedicled medial sural artery perforator gastrocnemius flap. Despite good functional results 1 year later, long-term follow-up revealed that two patients had to undergo arthrodesis because of recurrent infection and one patient was lost to follow-up. Conclusion: These results show that PJI of the knee and extensor apparatus deficiency is a dreaded combination with a poor long-term outcome. Standardization of surgical techniques for a defined PJI problem and consensus on study variables may facilitate interinstitutional comparisons of outcome data, and hence, improvement of treatment concepts.

One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips.

PURPOSE: There are various options for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Two-stage exchange has traditionally been the gold standard. However, if the appropriate surgical intervention is chosen according to a rational algorithm, the outcome is similar when using all types of interventions. In an observational cohort study, the outcome of patients with PJI after hip replacement treated with one-stage revision was analysed. METHODS: All patients fulfilling all criteria for one-stage exchange according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines and six without preoperative identification of a microorganism were included. Implant removal, debridement and cemented or uncemented reimplantations were performed in a single intervention. If a cemented device was implanted, commercially available gentamicin cement was used in all cases. Antibiotic treatment was administered intravenously for at least 2 weeks, followed by oral therapy for a total duration of 3 months. Patients had standardised clinical and radiological follow-up visits. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2011, 38 patients (39 hips) were treated with a one-stage procedure and followed for at least 2 years. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequent pathogens, and polymicrobial infection was observed in five cases. In 25 hips, an uncemented revision stem was implanted, and 37 hips received an acetabular reinforcement ring. The mean follow-up was 6.6 (2.0-15.1) years. No patient had persistent, recurrent or new infection. There were four stem revisions for aseptic loosening. The mean Harris Hip Score was 81 points (26-99) at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent cure rate and function seen in our study suggest that one-stage exchange is a safe procedure, even without local antibiotic treatment, provided that the patient has no sinus tract or severe soft tissue damage, no major bone grafting is required and the microorganism is susceptible to orally administered agents with high bioavailability.

Excellent long-term results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in primary total hip arthroplasty: A prospective study on radiology and survival of 321 hips with a mean follow-up of 11 years.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The original Müller acetabular reinforcement ring (ARR) shows favorable medium-term results for acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty, where it is used when the acetabular bone stock is deficient. However, there are no data regarding long-term survival of the device. We therefore investigated long-term survival and analyzed radiological modes of failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 2002, 321 consecutive primary arthroplasties using an ARR were performed in 291 patients. The mean follow-up time was 11 (0-25) years, and 24 hips were lost to follow-up. For survival analysis, we investigated 321 hips and the end of the follow-up was the date of revision, date of death, or the last patient contact date with implant still in situ. Radiological assessment was performed for 160 hips with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up and with radiographs of sufficient quality. It included evaluation of osteolysis, migration, and loosening. RESULTS: 12 ARR THAs were revised: 1 isolated ARR revision for aseptic loosening, 4 revisions of the ARR and the stem for aseptic loosening, 6 for infection, and 1 for recurrent dislocation. The cumulative revision rate for all components, for any reason, at 20 years was 15% (95% CI: 10-22), while for the ARR only it was 7% (95% CI: 4-12) for any reason and 3.4% (95% CI: 1-9) for aseptic loosening. 21 (13%) of 160 ARR THAs examined had radiological changes: 7 had osteolysis but were not loose, and 14 were radiologically loose but were not painful and not revised. INTERPRETATION: Our data suggest that the long-term survival of the ARR is excellent.