Aim. Analysis of microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome of patients who underwent a Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure in the early phase following failed two-stage
Introduction. Our objective is to describe early and midterm results with the use of a new knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected total knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a completed 2-stage revision. Methods. Forty-seven patients (48 knees) from January 2012 and November 2017 underwent a 2-stage exchange with an articulating spacer with new implants was used for a chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (2–6.5 years). The most frequently identified infecting organism was MSSA (31%), MRSA (21%) or MRSE (20%). At the first stage, a new PS femoral component and a new all-polyethylene posterior stabilized (PS) tibial component or a standard PS tibial liner were cemented with antibiotic-cement, typically 3.6 gm tobramycin and vancomycin 1.5 gm. IV antibiotics for six weeks were administered. The planned reimplantation was at 3 months, but ninetteen spacers (14 all poly tibias and 5 tibial liner) were retained for over 12 months. Postoperative assessment included knee range of motion (ROM), quality of life (QOL) scores (SF-12, WOMAC, KOOS, Oxford, and UCLA scores), and a satisfaction scale from 0–100%. Results. Of the 48 knees, 8 failed due to lack of infection control, and 2 died within the first year for medical reasons (4%), giving a failure rate of 17% (8/46). One of these knees was not revised due to poor medical status. Of the remaining 7, 2 had a repeat 2-stage exchange, one a single stage revision and 4 irrigation and debridement with retained implants. All 7 had a successful outcome with infection control after this, leaving a permanent failure rate of 2% (1/46). Five of the 19 knees with initially retained implants were revised to a second stage after 12 months for continued pain or instability (1/14 all poly tibia and 4/5 PS liner). There were no significant differences in final range of motion or QOL scores between patients with a retained first stage procedure and those who underwent a second stage operation. Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the initial failure rate due to infection between patients with a complete 2-stage revision and those with a retained first stage (19% (6/31) vs. 14% (2/14), respectively; p=0.613). Conclusions. When an all poly tibial implant is used a spacer in two-stage
It is strongly recommended that tissue and synovial fluid culture samples be obtained during reimplantation performed as part of a two-stage
Aim. The purpose of this work is to study whether there is or not, in the case of an aseptic
Purpose: The gold standard for treatment of infected total hip or knee replacements remains a 2-stage
The incidence of periprosthetic knee infection is generally low (0.5%–2%) but the economic impact is great. The rates are higher for rheumatoid arthritis and revision knee surgery. Treatment of periprosthetic knee infection takes into account the acuteness of the infection, the overall immune/medical status of the patient, and the local factors at the site of infection. Evaluate the results of two-phase
The relative advantages and disadvantages of two-stage versus one-stage management of infected total hip arthroplasties are the current subject of intense debate. To understand the merits of each approach detailed information on the short and, importantly, longer-term outcomes of each must be known. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results of two-stage
Two-stage
Purpose. Management and outcomes of fungal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remain unclear due to its rarity. Although two-stage
The method of choice in the management of chronic infections is the
Introduction. Two-stage
Aim. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that develops after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) whose incidence is expected to increase over the years. Traditionally, surgical treatment of PJI has been based on algorithms, where early infections are preferably treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), while late infections with two-stage revision surgery. Two-stage revision is considered the “gold standard” for treatment of chronic PJI. In this observational retrospective study, we investigated the potential role of inflammatory blood markers (neutrophil-to- lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammatory index (SII)], systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI), and aggregate index of systemic inflammation (AISI)) as prognostic factors in two-stage
Abstract. Introduction. The prevalence of recurrent infection following two-stage
Historical perspective: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular exchange has historically been the recommended treatment for acute post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and acute hematogenous PJI. The theory supporting this practice was that because the bacterial glycocalyx had not yet formed by these early time points, by simply debriding the intra-articular bacterial load and exchanging the modular parts, one could potentially eradicate the infection, retain the prior components, and minimise morbidity to the patient. More recently, literature is coming out suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case. The vast majority of published research on the outcomes following I&D for treatment of PJI has focused on either cohorts of total knee arthroplasty patients or combined cohorts of total hip and knee patients. For this reason, it is difficult to tease out the differential success rate of periprosthetic hip vs. knee infections. Sherrell et al. performed a systematic review of the existing literature and created a table detailing the failure rates for various published articles on I&D for periprosthetic TKA infection. Since it is the glycocalyx that has been thought to be the reason for treatment failure of many cases of PJI treated with I&D, many authors have implicated staphylococcal species as a predictor of a negative outcome with failure rates ranging from 30–35%. Methicillin resistant organisms have been shown to be particularly difficult to eradicate with an isolated I&D, with a 72–84% failure rate at 2 year follow-up. Interestingly, a recent study by Odum et al. suggests that neither the infecting microbe, nor the antibiotic resistance profile of the organism, as has been classically thought, actually predicts success of I&D. Previous reports have indicated that the ability of I&D to control infection is related to the duration of symptoms and its timing relative to the index surgery. However, more recent literature is coming out to support the contrary. Koyonos et al. reviewed the outcomes of a series of 138 cases of PJI treated with I&D based on acuity of infection and concluded that an I&D has a limited role in controlling PJI regardless of acuity. Intuitively, the physical health of the host/patient should influence the success of I&D for treatment of PJI. Several authors have shown that an immunocompromised state is a predictor of treatment failure. Furthermore, Azzam et al. reported that patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, a proxy of severity of medical comorbidities, had a significantly higher failure rate. Although potentially appealing due to relative ease of execution and minimal surgical morbidity, the ability to successfully eradicate infection with an arthroscopic procedure may be compromised. Given the inability to perform a radical surgical debridement, nor exchange modular components, arthroscopic debridement should be used with extreme reservation in any case of PJI, regardless of the host, nature of the infecting organism, or acuity of infection. I&D as a conservative, less morbid alternative to two-stage exchange - There is a growing body of literature to suggest that an I&D with modular component exchange may not be the benign, less morbid alternative to the ‘gold standard’ two-stage
Aim. Treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) combines
Aim. Surgical management of PJI remains challenging with patients failing treatment despite the best efforts. An important question is whether these later failures reflect reinfection or the persistence of infection. Proponents of reinfection believe hosts are vulnerable to developing infection and new organisms emerge. The alternative hypothesis is that later failure is a result of an organism that was present in the joint but was not picked up by initial culture or was not a pathogen initially but became so under antibiotic pressure. This multicenter study explores the above dilemma. Utilizing next-generation sequencing (NGS), we hypothesize that failures after two-stage
Background. Fungal infection at an arthroplasty site is rare and poses a therapeutic challenge. To the best of our knowledge, no reports have been published thus far on the success rate of prosthesis reimplantation after fungal prosthetic joint infections. Questions/purposes. We asked: (1) What is the success rate in terms of infection eradication using a two-stage
Aim. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) is an accepted treatment of early and late acute Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) infections. DAIR failure may adversely affect the outcome of a subsequent two-stage
Periprosthetic infection (PPI) is one of the most devastating complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is widely accepted that resection arthroplasty supplemented with intravenous antibiotics and delayed