Risk of Infection After Septic and Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The causes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure can be divided into septic and aseptic etiologies. It is unclear whether the etiology affects the infection rate after revision TKA. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate whether there is a difference in infection rates between septic and aseptic revision TKA. We hypothesized that infection rates would be higher after septic revision TKA. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched to find studies evaluating infection rates following septic and aseptic revision TKA. We included studies that compared the postoperative infection rates of a group that received revision TKA for aseptic failure and a group that received 1- or 2-stage revision TKA for septic failure. Studies on re-revision TKA and on revision surgery after partial knee arthroplasty were excluded, as were studies of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this systematic review. In studies in which 1- or 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, septic revision TKA had a significantly higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (odds ratio [OR], 6.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54 to 30.33; p = 0.01). Similarly, in studies in which 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, septic revision TKA had a significantly higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.33 to 7.36; p < 0.00001). In the comparison of revision TKA for aseptic loosening and septic revision TKA, septic revision TKA had a higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.28 to 8.70; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, septic revision TKA had a higher infection rate than aseptic revision TKA. Even when 2-stage revision TKA was performed for septic failure, the infection rate was higher after septic revision TKA than after aseptic revision. Surgeons should explain the relatively high infection rates to patients undergoing revision TKA for septic failure of their primary joint replacement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Computed tomography arthrography versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of osteochondral lesions of the talus.

INTRODUCTION: Osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT) usually have non-specific clinical symptoms, and radiographs have a low sensitivity for detecting OLT. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic value of CT arthrography (CTa) with that of MRI using arthroscopy as the reference standard for grading OLT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had OLT between 2015 and 2020. Patients with symptomatic OLT as a surgical indication, who were treated arthroscopically, and underwent both CTa and MRI before surgery were included. OLT was evaluated by both CTa and MRI using arthroscopy as the standard. We graded CTa, MRI, arthroscopic findings using Mintz classification. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included. Accuracy rates of MRI and CTa for grading OLT, compared to those of arthroscopy, were 57.1% and 88.6%, respectively. Among 15 mismatched cases in MRI, 12 lesions (80%) were matched in CTa and arthroscopy. CTa had significantly higher diagnostic performance than MRI for the detection of grade III lesions (p = 0.041). Using the receiver operating characteristics curves, the area under the curve values for lesion grading were 0.893 for CTa and 0.762 for MRI. CONCLUSION: CTa was statistically significantly better in detecting chondral flapping or subchondral exposure lesions for OLT than MRI on using arthroscopy as the reference standard. Because the stability of the OLT is essential in determining the treatment method, if an OLT is observed on MRI and is suspected to cause ankle pain, we recommend additional CTa examination to determine the more correct treatment strategies for OLT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III.