假体周围感染病原菌及耐药性分析

[目的]分析关节假体周围感染细菌的分布特点和耐药率。[方法]回顾性统计2016年～2018年本院收治的关节假体周围感染患者中细菌培养阳性结果,测定病原菌对多种抗菌药的最小抑菌浓度,并进行药物敏感性分析和比较。[结果]假体周围感染培养阳性菌株共295株,革兰阳性球菌占80.00%(236/295),其中金黄色葡萄球菌占26.78%(79/295)。耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)检出率为27.85%(22/79);凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌占45.08%(133/295),耐甲氧西林凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(MRCoNS)检出率为79.70%(106/133)。MRSA对庆大霉素和复方新诺明的敏感率分别为86.36%(19/22)和90.91%(20/22),MRCoNS对利福平和四环素的敏感率分别为84.91%(90/106)和86.79%(92/106),未发现对利奈唑胺和万古霉素耐药的金黄色葡萄球菌和表皮葡萄球菌。[结论]髋膝关节假体周围感染的主要病原菌是葡萄球菌,凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌占比例最高,且MRCoNS的检出率远高于MRSA,需引起临床重视。葡萄球菌除对万古霉素和利奈唑胺全敏感外,对利福平、左氧氟沙星、莫西沙星敏感率也较高,可作为抗感染治疗的选择。     

负压封闭引流结合敏感抗生素治疗假体周围急性感染

目的 :探讨负压封闭引流(vacuum sealing drainage,VSD)结合敏感抗生素治疗假体周围急性感染的疗效。方法:回顾性分析2012年3月至2018年12月采用保留假体的清创、VSD、敏感抗生素治疗11例假体周围急性感染,男7例,女4例;年龄58～88岁,平均72.5岁。髋关节假体周围感染8例,3例出现窦道,膝关节假体周围感染3例。结果:微生物培养阴性2例,阳性9例,金黄色葡萄球菌7例,其中2例耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus,MRSA),表皮葡萄球菌2例。术后随访8～52个月,平均28个月,1例髋关节假体周围感染清创失败,清创距关节置换时间84 d,行II期人工关节翻修术。10例清创成功。末次随访时,髋关节假体周围感染清创成功患者Harris评分84.1(74～93)分;膝关节假体周围感染者膝关节协会评分(Knee Society score,KSS)84,84,89分。结论:膝关节置换术后1个月内,髋关节置换术后6周内假体周围急性感染,及服用抗凝药物引起假体周围出血伴急性感染,采用保留假体的清创,VSD及敏感抗生素治疗,可获得较满意的效果。     

二期翻修术治疗髋关节假体周围感染

[目的]探讨采用临时间隔物并二期髋关节翻修手术治疗髋关节假体周围感染的有效性和治疗效果。[方法]回顾性分析2010年1月~2014年3月进行二期髋关节翻修手术治疗髋关节假体周围感染的29例患者资料。其中男18例,女11例,平均年龄(58.48±12.26)岁。采用一期取出假体、清创的抗生素间隔物置入,二期行关节翻修置换术。分析患者感染病原,通过比较术前术后Harris评分评估翻修术的效果。[结果]2例细菌培养为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的患者经数次清创后仍不能控制感染,另1例患者二期翻修因感染复发失败。其余26例患者二期手术后平均随访(29.12±9.26)个月(12~51个月),没有发生假体松动和感染复发,术前Harris评分平均为(48.11±19.42)分(18~91分),末次随访时平均为(84.27±14.11)分(58~100分),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]髋关节假体周围感染通过一期清创,间隔物置入及二期翻修手术可以有效控制感染并重建髋关节功能。而MRSA造成的髋关节假体周围感染是一期清创失败的原因之一。     

耐药葡萄球菌感染关节翻修假体带菌存留一例

关节置换术后感染的处理较困难,即便经历翻修,术后感染亦常复发,只能长期旷置、甚至采用髋关节融合来治疗.而甲氧西林耐药金黄色葡萄球菌(methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus,MRSA)因其广泛和高度的耐药性,使感染后的治疗变得更为棘手.我们对1例人工股骨头置换术后MRSA感染行翻修术后多次复发的患者采用带菌存留假体、局部持续负压引流的方法治疗,随访30个月关节假体无明显松动,并获得较好的屈髋活动功能,报告如下.     

人工髋关节置换术后感染的Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗

目的:探讨Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗在全髋关节置换术后感染的疗效和临床体会,以及该技术的安全性和有效性。方法:2006年1月至2009年3月,采用Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗17例(17髋)髋关节疾患,男7例,女10例;年龄43～75岁,平均58.5岁。17例患髋均有不同程度疼痛;关节液或假体周围组织细菌培养,11例阳性,6例阴性;术中所有患者假体周围组织病理检查发现急性炎症;8例出现与假体相通的窦道;15例血沉增快,15例C反应蛋白增高;17例X线片有骨融解、假体松动及骨膜反应等表现。所有病例采用Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗,Ⅰ期手术彻底清创,取出假体,以含万古霉素的骨水泥假体临时旷置,术后静脉输入抗生素4周后,改为口服抗生素6周。术后定期复查血沉和C反应蛋白,待结果正常后再Ⅱ期行人工髋关节翻修术。结合手术前后患者髋关节Harris评分,对人工髋关节置换术后感染的Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗进行分析。结果:所有患者获随访,时间12～35个月,平均19.5个月,术后X线片显示关节假体位置正确。Harris髋关节评分从术前平均(39.3±5.6)分提高到末次随访的平均(84.4±10.3)分(t=15.86,P0.01)。结论:Ⅱ期翻修手术治疗人工髋关节置换术后感染,具有疗效良好、安全可靠等优点,其为人工髋关节置换术后感染的治疗提供一种可靠的选择。     

人工关节置换术后感染的临床及预后分析

目的分析人工关节置换术后假体周围感染的病原学、临床特征,以及治疗方法对患者预后的影响。方法采用回顾性分析,查阅自2003年1月至2012年1月成渝某两家三甲医院收治行人工关节（髋、膝和肘关节）置换术后发生假体周围感染的病例,了解患者感染的微生物特征,患者的相关临床指标和预后,并利用医院电话随访平台了解出院患者的感染再发生情况。用多因素回归方法了解对患者预后有影响的的危险因素,Kaplan-Meier生存分析二期翻修对再发感染的影响。结果 10年中共获得资料完整病例72例,髋、膝、肘关节手术分别为26例、44例和2例。其中Ⅰ期置换56例,Ⅱ期置换16例。52.8%（38/72）患者出现了晚期感染。膝关节是感染最常见的部位。金黄色葡萄球菌（金葡菌）是最常见的感染病原菌（30.6%）,其次是凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌（19.4%）和鲍曼不动杆菌（8.7%）。对置换术后感染的治疗总痊愈率为41.7%,其中二期翻修的患者治愈率为（83.3%）,其它治疗方式的治愈率（36.7%）。两者相比,有统计学差异（P〈0.01）。多因素回归分析显示,二期翻修是对患者预后有统计学意义的有益因素,Kaplan-Meier生存分析也显示二期翻修发生感染复发几率显著低于非二期翻修组。结论金葡菌是引起人工关节置换术后感染最常见病原菌,二期翻修是治疗置换术后感染的适宜选择。     

骨科内置物感染葡萄球菌的研究进展

葡萄球菌是目前医院内最常见的致病菌,也是假体等骨科内置物周围感染的主要致病菌.1997～2005年UK卫生防护机构对手术部位感染的监测数据发现41.4%人工髋关节,33.5%人工膝关节,53%骨折切开复位以及59.1%髋部半关节成形术感染的病原菌为金黄色葡萄球菌.而凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌分别占这些感染的15.1%,20.7%,7.5%及6.3%.陈哲峰等调查国内人工关节术后假体周围感染的细菌学分布表明,金黄色葡萄球菌占总菌株数的34.59%,表皮葡萄球菌占总菌株数的37.48%; 46.7%的金黄色葡萄球菌和85.7%的表皮葡萄球菌株对甲氧西林耐药.     

外科感染常见耐药菌的治疗

在外科感染中常见的耐药菌有两类:耐药革兰阳性(G+)球菌和耐药革兰阴性(G-)杆菌.前者有:耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA);耐甲氧西林凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(MRCNS);耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌(MRSE);耐甲氧西林溶血性葡萄球菌;耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE)等.耐药G-杆菌主要有两类:(1)肠杆菌科:产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)菌;产染色体介导Ⅰ型β-内酰胺酶(AmpC)菌;产超超广谱β-内酰胺酶(SSBL)菌.(2)非发酵菌包括:铜绿假单胞菌;不动杆菌属包括鲍曼不动杆菌、洛非不动杆菌等;嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌等.     

保留假体的序贯疗法治疗骨肿瘤保肢术后假体周围感染

目的探索应用保留假体的"多米诺"序贯疗法治疗骨肿瘤保肢术后假体周围感染的注意事项和临床疗效。方法收集并回顾性分析2016年1月至2020年1月共11例采用保留假体的序贯疗法治疗骨肿瘤保肢术后假体周围感染患者资料,其中男8例,女3例;年龄(51.82±15.57)岁(范围21~74岁)。股骨远端肿瘤膝假体6例,胫骨近端肿瘤膝假体2例,骨盆假体感染2例,股骨中段假体1例。术前8例发热,2例出现窦道。序贯疗法治疗失败定义为:感染复发。治疗方法为保留假体的清创灌洗同时全身联合局部应用药物敏感的抗生素,评估患者的血常规、C反应蛋白、红细胞沉降率等指标,手术部位X线及CT扫描,并进行国际骨肿瘤协会(Musculoskeletal Tumor Society,MSTS)评分。结果微生物培养阳性率72.7%(8/11),其中金黄色葡萄球菌2例,表皮葡萄球菌1例,耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌1例,耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌1例,鲍曼不动杆菌2例,停乳链球菌(C群)1例。治疗前及治疗后末次随访时MSTS评分由(10.91±2.31)分提升至(20.73±3.52)分,差异有统计学意义(t=7.162,P<0.05)。3例序贯治疗感染控制失败,手术成功率72.7%(8/11),其中1例截肢,1例长期创面换药,1例改用抗生素骨水泥联合髓内钉反向双插技术控制感染。结论对临床感染症状短于1个月的骨肿瘤保肢术后假体周围感染,采用保留假体的"多米诺"序贯疗法治疗可取的较好的早中期临床疗效。     

人工髋关节感染翻修的探讨

[目的]分析人工髋关节感染采用一期或二期翻修治疗的选择及疗效。[方法]自2006年1月²010年1月本院收治的15例人工髋关节置换术后感染患者中,采用一期翻修4例(4髋);二期翻修术治疗11例(11髋)。一期翻修组,彻底清创,取出感染假体,置入含万古霉素骨水泥型假体。二期翻修组,一期手术彻底清创,取出感染假体,置入含有万古霉素骨水泥占位器,32010年1月本院收治的15例人工髋关节置换术后感染患者中,采用一期翻修4例(4髋);二期翻修术治疗11例(11髋)。一期翻修组,彻底清创,取出感染假体,置入含万古霉素骨水泥型假体。二期翻修组,一期手术彻底清创,取出感染假体,置入含有万古霉素骨水泥占位器,3⁶个月后二期手术,再次清创,取出骨水泥占位器后,置入骨水泥型或非骨水泥型假体。术后随访246个月后二期手术,再次清创,取出骨水泥占位器后,置入骨水泥型或非骨水泥型假体。术后随访24⁵6个月,平均31个月。[结果]15例患者均未发现感染复发,Harris评分术前一期翻修组为40.5分,翻修后为88.2分(8556个月,平均31个月。[结果]15例患者均未发现感染复发,Harris评分术前一期翻修组为40.5分,翻修后为88.2分(85⁹5分);二期翻修组术前为46.3分(2295分);二期翻修组术前为46.3分(22⁵5分),二期翻修后为87.1分(8055分),二期翻修后为87.1分(80⁹4分)。[结论]根据患者全身情况、实验室检查以及髋部骨质和软组织情况等综合因素,一期翻修术对于感染程度轻,无窦道形成的患者,临床效果满意。二期翻修则适用于感染程度严重,有窦道形成,关节腔内大量脓液的病例。     

Comparison between the Staphylococci aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci infected total joint arthroplasty treated by two-stage revision: A retrospective study with two year minimum follow-up

Background

Staphylococcus species are major pathogens of peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Coagulase-positive staphylococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci have different intrinsic virulences. However, few studies have specifically compared the clinical manifestations and two-stage revision outcomes of PJI caused by these two species.

Dilute Betadine Lavage Reduces the Risk of Acute Postoperative Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Aseptic Revision Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe purpose of this randomized, controlled trial is to determine whether dilute betadine lavage compared to normal saline lavage reduces the rate of acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsA total of 478 patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA and THA were randomized to receive a 3-minute dilute betadine lavage (0.35%) or normal saline lavage before surgical wound closure. Fifteen patients were excluded following randomization (3.1%) and six were lost to follow-up (1.3%), leaving 457 patients available for study. Of them, 234 patients (153 knees, 81 hips) received normal saline lavage and 223 (144 knees, 79 hips) received dilute betadine lavage. The primary outcome was PJI within 90 days of surgery with a secondary assessment of 90-day wound complications. A priori power analysis determined that 285 patients per group were needed to detect a reduction in the rate of PJI from 5% to 1% with 80% power and alpha of 0.05.ResultsThere were eight infections in the saline group and 1 in the betadine group (3.4% vs 0.4%, P = .038). There was no difference in wound complications between groups (1.3% vs 0%, P = .248). There were no differences in any baseline demographics or type of revision procedure between groups, suggesting appropriate randomization.ConclusionDilute betadine lavage before surgical wound closure in aseptic revision TKA and THA appears to be a simple, safe, and effective measure to reduce the risk of acute postoperative PJI.Level of EvidenceLevel I.     

Vancomycin-Gentamicin Prefabricated Spacers in 2-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Insights Into Reimplantation Microbiology and Outcomes

BackgroundSecond-stage positive cultures in 2-stage revision arthroplasty are a matter of concern, as their influence in outcomes is not clearly defined. We sought to study reimplantation microbiology when using vancomycin-gentamicin prefabricated cement spacers in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection. The associations of second-stage positive cultures with treatment failures and patient-associated factors were analyzed.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study, examining patients managed with 2-stage revision arthroplasty due to knee or hip chronic periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2017. Prefabricated vancomycin-gentamicin cement spacers were used during the spacer stage. Intraoperative microbiological culture results after the first and second stages were evaluated. The primary end point was infection eradication or relapse.ResultsA total of 108 cases were included (61 hips and 47 knees). And 22.2% of patients had ≥1 second-stage positive culture, while 9.3% had ≥2 positive samples. Overall success, at an average follow-up of 46.4 months, was 77.8%. Treatment failure was higher among cases with positive cultures (15.5% vs 45.8%, P < .01) regardless of the number of positive samples. Diabetes was identified as a risk factor for second-stage positive cultures (P = .03); use of cement loaded with extra antibiotics for spacer fixation showed a protective effect (P < .01).ConclusionSecond-stage positive cultures were related to a higher failure rate when using vancomycin-gentamicin cement spacers. Diabetes increased the likelihood of second-stage positive cultures. The use of extra-antibiotic-loaded cement for spacer fixation during the first stage showed a protective effect.     

膝关节镜手术对随后全膝关节置换术疗效影响的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析评估膝关节镜手术对随后的全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty,TKA)疗效影响。方法:计算机检索建库至2020年10月PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方等数据库关于膝关节镜手术对随后的TKA疗效影响的文献,根据纳入与排除标准进行文献筛选、质量评价及数据提取,采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(Newcastle-Ottawa Scale,NOS)评估非随机对照研究的文献质量。采用RevMan 5.3软件对TKA术后翻修率,再手术率,术后僵硬率,假体周围感染率,术后静脉栓塞(venous thromboembolism,VTE)发生率及术后膝关节屈曲活动度进行Meta分析。结果:最终纳入8篇文献,共 182 815例,其中膝关节镜手术组6 998例,无膝关节镜手术组175 817例。Meta分析结果显示:膝关节镜手术组与无膝关节镜手术组在TKA术后翻修率[OR=1.66,95%CI(1.37,2.00),P<0.000 01],再手术率[OR=2.31,95%CI(1.59,3.36),P<0.000 1],术后僵硬率[OR=1.78,95%CI (1.02,3.11),P=0.04]及假体周围感染率[OR=1.40,95%CI(1.19,1.66),P<0.000 1]方面比较差异有统计学意义;而在术后VTE发生率[OR=1.06,95%CI(0.83,1.35),P=0.64],术后膝关节屈曲活动度[MD=-1.21,95%CI(-3.07,0.65),P=0.20]方面比较差异无统计学意义。结论:膝关节镜手术对随后的TKA术后存在负面影响。先前的关节镜手术会增加TKA术后僵硬、假体周围感染、翻修及再手术的风险,而对术后膝关节屈曲活动度及VTE发生率方面无显著差异。     

Analysis of Culture Positive First and Second Stage Procedures in Periprosthetic Knee and Hip Joint Infections

BackgroundA 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.MethodsBetween 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.ResultsRe-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.ConclusionChanges 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.     

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With High Attrition Rate and Mortality

BackgroundWe sought to determine the ultimate fate of patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as a first stage in the process of 2-stage exchange and evaluate risk factors for modes of failure.MethodsA retrospective case study was performed including all patients with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent first-stage resection of a hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection from 2008 to 2015. Patient demographics, laboratory, and health status variables were collected. The primary outcome analyzed was defined as failure to achieve an infection-free 2-stage revision. Univariate pairwise comparison followed by multivariate regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for failure outcomes.ResultsEighty-nine patients underwent resection arthroplasty in a planned 2-stage exchange protocol (27 hips, 62 knees). Mean age was 64 years (range, 43-84), 56.2% were males, and mean follow-up was 56.3 months. Also, 68.5% (61/89) of patients underwent second-stage revision. Of the 61 patients who complete a 2-stage protocol, 14.8% (9/61) of patients failed with diagnosis of repeat or recurrent infection. Mortality rate was 23.6%. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for failure to achieve an infection-free 2-stage revision as polymicrobial infection (P < .004; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-29.0), McPherson extremity grade 3 (P < .024; AOR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.2-14.3), and history of prior resection (P < .013; AOR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.4-16.4).ConclusionPatients undergoing resection arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection are at high risk of death (24%) and failure to complete the 2-stage protocol (32%). Those who complete the 2-stage protocol have a 15% rate of reinfection at 4.5-year follow-up.     

Periprosthetic Tissue Reaction Independent of LTT Result and Implanted Materials in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundAn allergic reaction may rarely cause a painful or stiff total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, no consensus diagnostic criteria for TKA immune failure exist. Lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) measures immune sensitivity to various materials, but its role in diagnosing an allergic reaction to a TKA has not been established. This study compares TKA periprosthetic tissues in a) LTT-positive versus -negative patients and b) patients with conventional CoCrNi versus hypoallergenic implants.MethodsPeriprosthetic tissues from 26 revision cases of well-fixed, aseptic, but painful or stiff TKAs were analyzed. Twelve patients LTT positive for nickel (Ni) were matched as a cohort to 6 LTT-negative patients. In 4 patients LTT positive for Ni, tissue from first revision of CoCrNi implants was compared with tissue from subsequent revision of hypoallergenic implants. Histology was evaluated using the aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) score.ResultsNo correlation was found between LTT and any ALVAL score component. The mean total ALVAL score was 3.8 ± 1.5 for LTT-negative patients and 3.3 ± 1.2 for LTT-positive patients (P = .44). The mean total ALVAL score at revision of CoCrNi implants was 3.0 ± 1.8 compared with 5.8 ± 0.5 at rerevision of hypoallergenic implants (P = .053).ConclusionPeriprosthetic TKA tissue reactions were indistinguishable between LTT-positive and -negative patients. LTT does not predict the periprosthetic tissue response. ALVAL scores of hypoallergenic revision implant tissue trended higher than primary CoCrNi implant tissue. A positive LTT may not indicate that a periprosthetic immune reaction is the cause of pain and stiffness after TKA.Level of Evidence3, retrospective cohort study.     

Hospital Costs for Unsuccessful Two-Stage Revisions for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundAlthough 2-stage exchange arthroplasty is the preferred surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, little is known about the risk of complications between stages, mortality, and the economic burden of unsuccessful 2-stage procedures.MethodsThe 2015-2019 Medicare 100% inpatient sample was used to identify 2-stage PJI revisions in total hip and knee arthroplasty patients using procedural codes. We used the Fine and Gray sub-distribution adaptation of the conventional Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the probability of completing the second stage of the 2-stage PJI infection treatment, accounting for death as a competing risk. Hospital costs were estimated from the hospital charges using “cost-to-charge” ratios from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.ResultsA total of 5094 total hip arthroplasty and 13,062 total knee arthroplasty patients had an index revision for PJI during the study period. In the first 12 months following the first-stage explantation, the likelihood of completing a second-stage PJI revision was 43.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.7-44.5) for hips and 47.9% (95% CI 47.0-48.8) for knees. Following explantation, 1-year patient survival rates for hip and knee patients were 87.4% (95% CI 85.8-88.9) and 91.4% (95% CI 90.6-92.2), respectively. The median additional cost for hospitalizations between stages was $23,582 and $20,965 per patient for hips and knees, respectively. Hospital volume, Northeast or Midwest region, and younger age were associated with reduced PJI costs (P < .05).ConclusionAlthough viewed as the most preferred, the 2-stage revision strategy for PJI had less than a 50% chance of successful completion within the first year, and was associated with high mortality rates and substantial costs for treatment failure.     

Single-stage Acetabular Revision During Two-stage THA Revision for Infection is Effective in Selected Patients

Background

The treatment of periprosthetic infections of hip arthroplasties typically involves use of either a single- or two-stage (with implantation of a temporary spacer) revision surgery. In patients with severe acetabular bone deficiencies, either already present or after component removal, spacers cannot be safely implanted. In such hips where it is impossible to use spacers and yet a two-stage revision of the prosthetic stem is recommended, we have combined a two-stage revision of the stem with a single revision of the cup. To our knowledge, this approach has not been reported before.

Questions/purposes

(1) What proportion of patients treated with single-stage acetabular reconstruction as part of a two-stage revision for an infected THA remain free from infection at 2 or more years? (2) What are the Harris hip scores after the first stage and at 2 years or more after the definitive reimplantation?

Methods

Between June 2009 and June 2014, we treated all patients undergoing surgical treatment for an infected THA using a single-stage acetabular revision as part of a two-stage THA exchange if the acetabular defect classification was Paprosky Types 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, or pelvic discontinuity and a two-stage procedure was preferred for the femur. The procedure included removal of all components, joint débridement, definitive acetabular reconstruction (with a cage to bridge the defect, and a cemented socket), and a temporary cemented femoral component at the first stage; the second stage consisted of repeat joint and femoral débridement and exchange of the femoral component to a cementless device. During the period noted, 35 patients met those definitions and were treated with this approach. No patients were lost to followup before 2 years; mean followup was 42 months (range, 24–84 months). The clinical evaluation was performed with the Harris hip scores and resolution of infection was assessed by the absence of clinical signs of infection and a C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L. All patients were assessed before surgery, between stages, every 3 months during the first year after surgery, every 6 months during the second year postoperative, and at latest followup, and were retrospectively drawn from a longitudinally maintained institutional database.

Results

Thirty-four of 35 patients (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.4%-99.5%) appeared free of infection by criteria of Masri et al. and Zimmerli et al. at latest followup. The Harris hip score was 61 ± 13 points after the first operation and 82 ± 16 points 2 years after the second operation.

Conclusions

This technique is a promising treatment option for periprosthetic infections of the hip in which substantial acetabular defects exclude implantation of a normal spacer and a two-stage revision of the femoral component is favored.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.