Periprosthetic shoulder infection management: one-stage should be the way: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is still no consensus among surgeons on whether to perform a 1- or 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to rigorously synthesize published studies evaluating the clinical outcomes, recurrence of infection, and other clinical complications in order to discuss which is the best strategy for treating periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Upon research using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in November 2022, studies that presented 1- or 2-stage surgical revision as a treatment for periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty and assessed the reinfection rate on these patients, as well as other clinical outcomes, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Reinfection and complication rates were extracted, and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model. RESULTS: After careful screening, 44 studies were included, 5 reporting on 1-stage and 30 on 2-stage revisions and 9 assessing both strategies. A total of 185 shoulders were reported in 1-stage revision studies, whereas 526 shoulders were reported in 2-stage revision studies. The overall pooled random-effects reinfection rate was 6.68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-10.13), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, P = .03). One-stage revision showed a reinfection rate of 1.14% (95% CI: 0.00-4.88), whereas 2-stage revision analysis revealed a reinfection rate of 8.81% (95% CI: 4.96-13.33). There were significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage reinfection rates (P = .04). The overall pooled rate for other clinical complications was 16.76% (95% CI: 9.49-25.15), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P < .01). One-stage revision had a complication rate of 6.11% (95% CI: 1.58-12.39), whereas the 2-stage revision complication rate was 21.26% (95% CI: 11.51-32.54). This difference was statistically significant (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis showing significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. Provided the right conditions exist, 1-stage revision shows better results in infection control, with lower clinical complications and possible better clinical outcomes.

Validation of new shoulder periprosthetic joint infection criteria.

BACKGROUND: A periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the shoulder can be difficult to diagnose. Many variables have been used to determine a PJI. Recently, the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on orthopedic infections gave new criteria to help identify PJI in the shoulder. With the new criteria (major and minor), the PJI definition can be categorized into definite, probable, possible, and unlikely. This study was conducted to assess the new criteria for a series of consecutive first stage revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. METHODS: All patients undergoing a first stage revision shoulder arthroplasty using a prosthesis made of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (PROSTALAC) spacer from 2016 through 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. All cases were performed by a single surgeon. Each case was reviewed using the 2018 shoulder ICM diagnostic criteria. Secondary factors evaluated were type of organism identified, accuracy of minor criteria, and frozen vs. permanent section accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 87 first-stage revision arthroplasty cases were reviewed. Based on the 2018 ICM criteria, there were 20 definite (30.0%), 19 probable (21.8%), 6 possible (6.9%), and 42 unlikely (48.3%) infections. Cutibacterium acnes was the most common infectious organism overall (77.3% of culture positive cases) and was present in 39.1% of cases overall. Ten patients (25.6%) grew multiple organisms. Thirty-one patients (35.6%) had a loose humeral stem, with 23 of those patients (74.2%) having a definite or probable infection (odds ratio [OR] 7.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.67-19.37, P = .0001). Eleven patients (91.7%) with an elevated intraoperative synovial neutrophil cell count had a definite or probable infection. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) was elevated in patients with a definite or probable infection (OR 9.4, 95% CI 2.47-35.62, P = .0010, and OR 7.7, 95% CI 2.29-25.56, P = .0009), respectively. Discordant results between frozen and permanent sections were found in 4 patients (4.6%). CONCLUSION: The 2018 ICM shoulder infection criteria gave a new scoring system to diagnose PJI. C acnes was the most common infectious organism identified. Patients who had a loose humeral stem, elevated ESR, or elevated CRP were more likely to have either a definite or probable PJI. Frozen sections were able to accurately identify definite infections. Unexpected wound drainage and positive preoperative cultures were low-yield criteria in this series. More research into determining periprosthetic shoulder infection is needed to help identify which patients are more likely to have an infection.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant complication after arthroplasty with high morbidity. An evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of shoulder PJI is lacking in current practice. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to understand and compare the role of single- and 2-stage shoulder arthroplasty revision for PJI. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify all studies related to shoulder arthroplasty for PJI in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review were studies that reported on single- or 2-stage revision, with infection eradication and a minimum follow-up of 12 months and a minimum of 5 patients for analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q and I2. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies reporting on single-stage revision and 30 studies reporting on 2-stage revision were included in final analysis. The majority of positive cultures from single-stage revision for PJI resulted in Cutibacterium acnes with 113 of 232 (48.7%) reported cases compared with 190 of 566 (33.7%) reported cases for 2-stage revision. However, there was a lower percentage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus positive cultures, with 2.5% for single-stage compared with 9.7% for 2-stage revision. The overall pooled random-effect reinfection incidence was 0.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.08), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34%, P = .02). The reinfection rate was 6.3% for single-stage and 10.1% for 2-stage revision, but this was not significant (Q = 0.9 and P = .40). CONCLUSION: Based on a systematic review with meta-analysis, single-stage revision for shoulder PJI is an effective treatment. Indeed, our analysis showed single-stage to be more effective than 2-stage, but this is likely confounded by a treatment bias given the higher propensity of virulent and drug-resistant bacteria treated with 2-stage in the published literature. This implies that shoulder surgeons treating PJI can be reassured of a low recurrence rate (6.3%) when using single-stage treatment for C acnes or other sensitive, low-virulence organisms.

Outcomes of revision arthroplasty for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a three-stage revision protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated outcomes after treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with a 3-stage revision protocol consisting of (1) débridement, explantation, and cement spacer placement, followed by parenteral antibiotics; (2) open biopsy and débridement; and (3) reimplantation if cultures were negative. We hypothesized this protocol would eradicate persistent infection while producing excellent functional and subjective outcomes, and there would be no difference in these parameters for patients with shoulder PJI compared with patients with revision for aseptic indications. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected revision shoulder arthroplasty cohort to identify shoulder PJI patients treated with a 3-stage protocol. Demographics, culture data, range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Outcomes for patients with shoulder PJI and revision to RTSA were compared with patients revised to RTSA for noninfectious indications. Significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: There were 28 cases of shoulder PJI in 27 patients (age, 66.4 ± 11.2 years,); of these, 21 shoulders were revised to RTSA, and 7 shoulders were revised to hemiarthroplasty. There was no recurrent infection at a mean 32-month follow-up. One year after surgery, mean forward flexion was 110° ± 41° and abduction was 106° ± 42°. Mean final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective score was 66.5 ± 23.3. The 21 shoulders with PJI revised to RTSA had no differences for functional and subjective outcomes compared with revised patients without shoulder PJI. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-stage revision protocol for shoulder PJI reliably eradicated infection. Patients with PJI revised to RTSA can have similar outcomes as patients with noninfectious revision to RTSA.

What is a "periprosthetic shoulder infection"? A systematic review of two decades of publications.

PURPOSE: While as many as 50% of revision shoulder arthroplasties are culture positive, a consistent, clinically useful definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection" is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature with respect to (1) the definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection", (2) the pre-operative evaluation for possible infection, and (3) the harvesting and culturing of specimens at the time of surgical revision. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we identified 20 studies concerning infection at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty. The review was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: An explicit definition of infection was not present in six studies (27%). Classification systems used for periprosthetic hip and knee infections were used in three studies (14%). Clinical signs and symptoms were used in all definitions, but most studies did not report microbiologic results or culturing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Synthesis of the literature on failed arthroplasties with positive cultures is compromised by lack of standardization, leaving surgeons without secure evidence on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions. These decisions would be better informed if authors used a consistent approach in the evaluation of failed arthroplasties with respect to the number and source of specimens submitted, the culture technique, the number of specimens that became culture positive, the bacteria identified, and the bacterial load recovered from the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a systematic review of reports of all levels.

Ten-day culture incubation time can accurately detect bacterial infection in periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cutibacterium acnes is the most commonly isolated organism involved in periprosthetic shoulder infections. C acnes has traditionally been difficult to isolate, and much debate exists over appropriate culture methods. Recently, our institution initiated a 10-day culture method using a Brucella blood agar medium to enhance anaerobic growth specifically for C acnes in shoulder specimens. METHODS: A retrospective review of shoulder cultures from 2014-2017 of patients undergoing workup for possible infected shoulder arthroplasty was performed. Cultures were obtained in patients either preoperatively or intraoperatively at the time of revision. Presence of infection was determined based on at least 1 positive culture and treatment with either prolonged antibiotics, placement of an antibiotic spacer at the time of revision, or repeat surgical débridement. RESULTS: The records of 85 patients with 136 cultures were reviewed. Eighty-two patients had full records with at least 1-year clinical follow-up. Fifty-eight cultures were positive, with C acnes as the most commonly recovered organism (57% of positive cultures). Clinical follow-up of patients with negative cultures found no incidence of missed periprosthetic infection. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a 10-day culture incubation method to enhance anaerobic bacterial growth is able to accurately detect periprosthetic infection in the shoulder including those related to C acnes. Our results suggest that by adopting more uniform culture methods, a shorter culture incubation time may be adequate. Ultimately, prospective studies with rigorous microbiologic methods are needed to best understand the clinical significance of unexpected positive bacterial cultures in shoulder arthroplasty.