Arthrodesis is rarely used as a salvage procedure for patients with a chronically infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and little information is available about the outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, durability, and safety of this procedure as the definitive treatment for complex, chronically infected TKA, in a current series of patients. We retrospectively identified 41 patients (41 TKAs) with a complex infected TKA, who were treated between 2002 and 2016 using a deliberate, two-stage knee arthrodesis. Their mean age was 64 years (34 to 88) and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 39 kg/m2 (25 to 79). The mean follow-up was four years (2 to 9). The extensor mechanism (EM) was deficient in 27 patients (66%) and flap cover was required in 14 (34%). Most patients were host grade B (56%) or C (29%), and limb grade 3 (71%), according to the classification of McPherson et al. A total of 12 patients (29%) had polymicrobial infections and 20 (49%) had multi-drug resistant organisms; fixation involved an intramedullary nail in 25 (61%), an external fixator in ten (24%), and dual plates in six (15%).Aims
Methods
Most problems encountered in complex revision
total knee arthroplasty can be managed with the wide range of implant
systems currently available. Modular metaphyseal sleeves, metallic
augments and cones provide stability even with significant bone
loss. Hinged designs substitute for significant ligamentous deficiencies.
Catastrophic failure that precludes successful reconstruction can
be encountered. The alternatives to arthroplasty in such drastic
situations include knee arthrodesis, resection arthroplasty and
amputation. The relative indications for the selection of these
alternatives are recurrent deep infection, immunocompromised host,
and extensive non-reconstructible bone or soft-tissue defects.
This review summarises the opinions and conclusions
reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR)
held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual
meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales
reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused
by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative
stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by
aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal
treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive
debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating
or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to
implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level
of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity
and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative
organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised,
and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or
osteitis. It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality
reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance
as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.
