Bernhard J H Frank1, Alexander Aichmair2, Sebastian Simon2, Gilbert M Schwarz3, Martin Dominkus4, Jochen G Hofstaetter2. 1. Michael Ogon Laboratory for Orthopaedic Research, Orthopaedic Hospital Vienna-Speising, Vienna, Austria. 2. Michael Ogon Laboratory for Orthopaedic Research, Orthopaedic Hospital Vienna-Speising, Vienna, Austria; 2nd Department, Orthopaedic Hospital Vienna-Speising, Vienna, Austria. 3. Michael Ogon Laboratory for Orthopaedic Research, Orthopaedic Hospital Vienna-Speising, Vienna, Austria; Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma-Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. 2nd Department, Orthopaedic Hospital Vienna-Speising, Vienna, Austria; School of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A positive microbiological result at reimplantation may lead to a failed 2-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. Little is known about changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern between culture positive first and second stage procedures in revision knee and hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2019, we performed 327 two-stage revision arthroplasties on 312 patients. There were 37 of 312 (11.9%) patients (20 hips/17 knees) who had a positive microbiological culture during the first and second stage procedure. We analyzed the microbiological spectrum, antimicrobial resistance pattern, and clinical outcome of culture positive first and second stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. RESULTS: Re-revision was necessary in 40.5% (15/37) of patients with culture positive first and second stage procedure at a median follow-up of 3.5 years. We found microbiological changes in 83.8% (31/37) of patients between the first and second stage and in 88.9% (8/9) between the second stage and subsequent culture positive re-revision. Polymicrobial infections were found in 21.6% (8/37) of first and in 16.2% (6/37) of second stage procedures. In 27% (10/37) of patients, microorganisms persisted between the first and second stage procedure. The antimicrobial resistance pattern changed in 60% of persistent microorganisms between the first and second stage procedure. CONCLUSION: Changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern are common between culture positive first and second stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. This has to be considered in the antimicrobial treatment of periprosthetic joint infections.
BACKGROUND: A positive microbiological result at reimplantation may lead to a failed 2-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. Little is known about changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern between culture positive first and second stage procedures in revision knee and hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2019, we performed 327 two-stage revision arthroplasties on 312 patients. There were 37 of 312 (11.9%) patients (20 hips/17 knees) who had a positive microbiological culture during the first and second stage procedure. We analyzed the microbiological spectrum, antimicrobial resistance pattern, and clinical outcome of culture positive first and second stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. RESULTS: Re-revision was necessary in 40.5% (15/37) of patients with culture positive first and second stage procedure at a median follow-up of 3.5 years. We found microbiological changes in 83.8% (31/37) of patients between the first and second stage and in 88.9% (8/9) between the second stage and subsequent culture positive re-revision. Polymicrobial infections were found in 21.6% (8/37) of first and in 16.2% (6/37) of second stage procedures. In 27% (10/37) of patients, microorganisms persisted between the first and second stage procedure. The antimicrobial resistance pattern changed in 60% of persistent microorganisms between the first and second stage procedure. CONCLUSION: Changes in microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern are common between culture positive first and second stage procedures as well as subsequent re-revisions. This has to be considered in the antimicrobial treatment of periprosthetic joint infections.
Authors: Enrico Maria Zardi; Paolo Persichetti; Alessio Palumbo; Edoardo Franceschetti; Francesco Franceschi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexander Aichmair; Bernhard J H Frank; Gabriel Singer; Sebastian Simon; Martin Dominkus; Jochen G Hofstaetter Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.362