A C Steinicke1, J Schwarze1, G Gosheger1, B Moellenbeck1, T Ackmann1, C Theil2. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, Muenster University Hospital, Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. christoph.theil@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22-51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. RESULTS: 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64-89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18-57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher's exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. CONCLUSION: The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.
INTRODUCTION: Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22-51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. RESULTS: 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64-89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18-57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher's exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. CONCLUSION: The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.
Authors: Peter Helwig; Julia Morlock; Michael Oberst; Oliver Hauschild; Johannes Hübner; Johannes Borde; Norbert P Südkamp; Lukas Konstantinidis Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Bhaveen H Kapadia; Richard A Berg; Jacqueline A Daley; Jan Fritz; Anil Bhave; Michael A Mont Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Keith R Berend; Adolph V Lombardi; Michael J Morris; Adam G Bergeson; Joanne B Adams; Michael A Sneller Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Cameron B Barton; David L Wang; Qiang An; Timothy S Brown; John J Callaghan; Jesse E Otero Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Setor K Kunutsor; Michael R Whitehouse; Erik Lenguerrand; Ashley W Blom; Andrew D Beswick Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240