Literature DB >> 35089422

Two-stage exchange for PJI with co-existing cerclages for fracture: higher rates of early re-infections and difficult to treat microbes.

Daniel Karczewski1, Maximilian Müllner2, Christian Hipfl2, Carsten Perka2, Michael Müller2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) with osteosynthesis material for contemporaneous fractures are a challenging, yet poorly described condition. This study will analyze PJI with co-existing fractures treated with cerclages and two-stage exchange.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with and without cerclages for coexisting periprosthetic fractures, undergoing two-stage exchange for PJI of hip or knee, between 06/2013 and 02/2016, were compared concerning baseline characteristics and re-infection rate in the course of a 2 year follow-up. All patients were treated with a standardized two-stage protocol. A PJI was defined according to the EBJIS criteria. All foreign material, including cerclages, was sent in for sonication for microbiological analysis.
RESULTS: Ninety-six patients treated with two-stage exchange for PJI could be included. Co-existing fractures treated with cerclage were identified in nine patients (9.3%, study group). Diaphyseal femoral simple in five cases (AO2A3) and proximal intertrochanteric in three cases (AO1A3) were the leading fracture locations. In one patient, cerclage implantation was performed prior to prosthesis explantation, in six, during prosthesis explantation, and in two, in the course of prosthesis reimplantation. The study group showed a significantly higher rate of difficult to treat microbes (44.4%; 8.0%; p = .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.4; 3.7; p = .033), relapse infections with the same microbe (22.2%; 1.1%; p = .001), and early-onset infections (< 30 days) (11.1%; 1.1%; p = .046), than the comparison two-stage exchange group without fractures. In contrast, age (72.5 study group; 68.2 comparison group; p = .224), rate of revisions for PJI in the past (55.5%; 51.7%; p = .827), and total re-infection rate (22.2%; 10.3%; p = .287) did not show a difference.
CONCLUSION: PJI with co-existing cerclages for fractures were associated with multi-resistant microbes, relapse by the same microbe and early-onset re-infections. Cerclages might be considered a potential source of re-infection during a two-stage exchange. However, statistical weaknesses and a small study group must be considered limitations of the study.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cerclage; Fracture; Periprosthetic joint infection; Two-stage exchange

Year:  2022        PMID: 35089422     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04361-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  18 in total

Review 1.  Revised histopathological consensus classification of joint implant related pathology.

Authors:  V Krenn; L Morawietz; G Perino; H Kienapfel; R Ascherl; G J Hassenpflug; M Thomsen; P Thomas; M Huber; D Kendoff; D Baumhoer; M G Krukemeyer; S Natu; F Boettner; J Zustin; B Kölbel; W Rüther; J P Kretzer; A Tiemann; A Trampuz; L Frommelt; R Tichilow; S Söder; S Müller; J Parvizi; U Illgner; T Gehrke
Journal:  Pathol Res Pract       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 3.250

2.  Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018

Authors:  Eric G Meinberg; Julie Agel; Craig S Roberts; Matthew D Karam; James F Kellam
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.512

3.  The Microbiological Profiles of Infected Prosthetic Implants with an Emphasis on the Organisms which Form Biofilms.

Authors:  Anisha Fernandes; Meena Dias
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-02-01

4.  The worst-case scenario: treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture with coexistent periprosthetic infection-a prospective and consecutive clinical study.

Authors:  Michael Müller; Tobias Winkler; Sven Märdian; Andrej Trampuz; Nora Renz; Carsten Perka; Daniel Karczewski
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Prosthetic joint infection following hip fracture and degenerative hip disorder: a cohort study of three thousand, eight hundred and seven consecutive hip arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of five years.

Authors:  Richard Blomfeldt; Piotr Kasina; Carin Ottosson; Anders Enocson; Lasse J Lapidus
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  A standardized interdisciplinary algorithm for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections.

Authors:  D Karczewski; T Winkler; N Renz; A Trampuz; E Lieb; C Perka; M Müller
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  [Prosthetic joint infection in patients with hip fracture. Differences from infection of elective prosthesis].

Authors:  J M Barbero; E Montero; A Vallés; M A Plasencia; J Romanyk; J Gómez
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 1.553

8.  [Risk factors for infection in total knee artrhoplasty, including previously unreported intraoperative fracture and deep venous thrombosis].

Authors:  M de Dios; J Cordero-Ampuero
Journal:  Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol       Date:  2014-08-29

Review 9.  Prosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  Aaron J Tande; Robin Patel
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 10.  Periprosthetic joint infection: current concepts and outlook.

Authors:  Petra Izakovicova; Olivier Borens; Andrej Trampuz
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2019-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.