Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker1, Claudia A M Löwik2, Joris J W Ploegmakers2, Bas A S Knobben3, Baukje Dijkstra4, Astrid J de Vries3, Glen Mithoe5, Greetje Kampinga1, Wierd P Zijlstra4, Paul C Jutte2. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Martini Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Microbiology, Certe, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), a second surgical debridement (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention [DAIR]) is generally not recommended after a failed first one. We identified the failure rate of a second DAIR and aimed to identify patients in whom an additional debridement might still be beneficial. METHODS: Patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee and treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. A second DAIR was routinely performed provided that the soft tissue was intact. Failure of a second DAIR was described as (1) the need for additional surgical intervention to achieve infection control, (2) the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy due to persistent clinical and/or biochemical signs of infection, or (3) PJI related death. RESULTS: From the 455 cases treated with DAIR, 144 cases underwent a second debridement (34.6%). Thirty-seven cases failed (37/144, 25.7%). The implant needed to be removed in 23 cases (23/144, 16%). Positive cultures during the second DAIR (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.29-7.74) and chronic renal insufficiency (odds ratio 13.6, 95% confidence interval 2.03-91.33) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis. No difference in failure was observed between persistent infection with the same microorganism and reinfection with a new microorganism (failure rate 31.6% vs 34.6%, P = .83). CONCLUSION: A second DAIR had a low failure rate in our cohort of patients and the implant could be retained in the majority of them. Therefore, a second DAIR should not be discarded in acute PJIs.
BACKGROUND: In acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), a second surgical debridement (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention [DAIR]) is generally not recommended after a failed first one. We identified the failure rate of a second DAIR and aimed to identify patients in whom an additional debridement might still be beneficial. METHODS:Patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee and treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. A second DAIR was routinely performed provided that the soft tissue was intact. Failure of a second DAIR was described as (1) the need for additional surgical intervention to achieve infection control, (2) the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy due to persistent clinical and/or biochemical signs of infection, or (3) PJI related death. RESULTS: From the 455 cases treated with DAIR, 144 cases underwent a second debridement (34.6%). Thirty-seven cases failed (37/144, 25.7%). The implant needed to be removed in 23 cases (23/144, 16%). Positive cultures during the second DAIR (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.29-7.74) and chronic renal insufficiency (odds ratio 13.6, 95% confidence interval 2.03-91.33) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis. No difference in failure was observed between persistent infection with the same microorganism and reinfection with a new microorganism (failure rate 31.6% vs 34.6%, P = .83). CONCLUSION: A second DAIR had a low failure rate in our cohort of patients and the implant could be retained in the majority of them. Therefore, a second DAIR should not be discarded in acute PJIs.
Authors: W P Zijlstra; J J W Ploegmakers; G A Kampinga; M L Toren-Wielema; H B Ettema; B A S Knobben; P C Jutte; M Wouthuyzen-Bakker Journal: Arthroplasty Date: 2022-04-11