Treatment and Outcome of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a devastating but poorly understood complication, with a paucity of published data regarding treatment and outcomes. This study analyzes the largest cohort of UKA PJIs to date comparing treatment outcome, septic and aseptic reoperation rates, and risk factors for treatment failure.MethodsTwenty-one UKAs in 21 patients treated for PJI, as defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria, were retrospectively reviewed. Minimum and mean follow-up was 1 and 3.5 years, respectively. Fourteen (67%) patients had acute postoperative PJIs. Surgical treatment included 16 debridement, antibiotics, and implant retentions (DAIRs) (76%), 4 two-stage revisions (19%), and 1 one-stage revision (5%). Twenty (95%) PJIs were culture positive with Staphylococcus species identified in 15 cases (71%).ResultsSurvivorship free from reoperation for infection at 1 year was 76% (95% confidence interval, 58%-93%). Overall survival from all-cause reoperation was 57% (95% confidence interval, 27%-87%) at 5 years. Two additional patients (10%) underwent aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty for lateral compartment degeneration 1 year after DAIR and tibial aseptic loosening 2.5 years after 2-stage revision. All patients who initially failed PJI UKA treatment presented with acute postoperative PJIs (5 of 14; 36%).ConclusionSurvivorship free from persistent PJI at 1 year is low at 76% but is consistent with similar reports of DAIRs for total knee arthroplasties. Furthermore, there is low survivorship free from all-cause reoperation of 71% and 57% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Surgeons should be aware of these poorer outcomes and consider treating UKA PJI early and aggressively.     

Distal Femoral Replacement and Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Non-Oncological Reconstruction: A Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundDistal femoral replacement (DFR) is commonly used to manage massive bone loss around the knee arising from aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and distal femoral fractures. A number of studies report the outcome of DFR with considerable variation in long-term survivorship. This study investigated the outcome of DFR for patients with aseptic failures, fractures, and PJI.MethodsA retrospective review of 182 patients who underwent DFR for non-oncological indications between 2002 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included the following: indication, postoperative complications, reoperation, revision, and follow-up. Implant survivorship with Kaplan-Meier curves along with a log-rank test for different preoperative indications was performed. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the risk of revision.ResultsThe overall postoperative complication rate was very high at 36%. The most common complication was PJI (17%). The rate of reoperation for any cause was 29.7%, and the revision rate was 13.7%. The most common cause of re-revision was PJI (7.1%). Revision-free survivorship of the DFR implant was 91.6% at 1 year, 87.9% at 2 years, 82.5% at 5 years, and 73.4% at 10 years. Patients who had a prior-PJI had the lowest survivorship compared to patients undergoing DFR for management of periprosthetic fracture and mechanical loosening. Additionally, the prior-PJI group was at a fourfold increased risk of postoperative PJI compared to the aseptic group.ConclusionDFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive bone loss around the knee. However, patients undergoing DFR are at high risk of complications, reoperations, and failure.     

The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.MethodsTwo-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.ResultsA total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.ConclusionPatellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Satisfactory Outcomes of All-Poly Fixed Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Avascular Osteonecrosis Versus Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Study With 10 to 22 Years of Follow-up

BackgroundWhile good mid-term results for treating spontaneous knee osteonecrosis (SPONK) with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have been reported, concerns remain about implant survival at long-term. This study aimed to compare outcomes and survivorship of UKA for SPONK vs osteoarthritis at a minimum of 10 years.MethodsThis case-control study included medial UKA for femoral SPONK operated between 1996 and 2010 with a minimum 10-year follow-up (n = 47). Each case was matched with a medial UKA for osteoarthritis based on body mass index (BMI), gender, and age. Knee Society Score (KSS), complications and radiological (loosening) data were collected at the last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using revision implant removal as endpoint.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 13.2 years (range 10 to 21 years). Mean age and BMI were 72.9 ± 8.4 years and 25.5 ± 3.6 Kg/m² in SPONK group. At last follow-up, knee and function KSS were 89.5 ± 12 and 79 ± 18 in SPONK group vs 90 ± 15 (P = .85) and 81.7 ± 17 (P = .47) in control group. Complications and radiological results showed no significant differences. The survival rate free from any revision was 85.1% at last follow-up in SPONK group and 93.6% in control group (P = .23). The leading cause for revision was aseptic tibial loosening (57.1%) in SPONK group. The 15-year survival estimate was 83% in SPONK group.ConclusionSatisfactory clinical outcomes at long-term after UKA for femoral SPONK were observed, similar to those after UKA for osteoarthritis, despite a higher risk of tibial loosening in the SPONK group. No symptomatic femoral loosening leading to a revision was observed.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: More Conversions,Fewer Complications Than Proximal Tibial Osteotomy in a Young Population

BackgroundPatients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis requiring surgical intervention generally have two surgical options: unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and proximal tibial osteotomy (PTO). Outcomes of reoperation rates and survivorship are important for counseling patients on treatment options.MethodsA retrospective, comparative cohort study was performed for a consecutive series of patients in the Military Health System who underwent either UKA or PTO between 2003 and 2018. All patients were between 18 and 55 years old and diagnosed with isolated medial compartmental arthritis. Cases with concurrent meniscal or cartilage procedures were included, while cases with concurrent ligament reconstruction were excluded. A minimum 2-year follow-up was required. The primary outcome was conversion to total knee arthroplasty, and the secondary outcome was reoperation for any reason.ResultsA total of 383 procedures were performed for isolated medial compartment arthritis in 303 patients (UKA 270, PTO 113). A multivariate analysis showed that PTO was associated with decreased risk of conversion to TKA compared to UKA (P = .0364). However, the reoperation due to complications was significantly higher in the PTO group (21.2% vs 2.2%; P ≤ .01). The 5-year conversion rate was 13.7% for UKA and 3.5% for PTO (P = .0033) with an average time to conversion of 3.1 years for UKA and 2.9 years for PTO (P = .7805).ConclusionsIn young patients with isolated medial compartment arthritis, conversion rates to TKA are higher with UKA compared to PTO. However, overall reoperation rate is higher with PTO, secondary to complications and revision procedures. Overall survivorship is acceptable for both procedures.     

Survival,functional outcome and satisfaction of first revision total knee arthroplasty at a mean eleven-year follow-up

Purpose

Providing long-term outcome data after rTKA and compare one- versus two-stage and septic versus aseptic revisions.

Methods

This study represents a single-center retrospective study of first rTKAs performed for any reason with a final follow-up of a minimum of five years. Outcome parameters included stability assessment ROM, radiologic assessment, HSS score, KSS score, OKS score, EQ-5D-3L and VAS. 44 patients were included in the study. Subgroups analysis of one- versus two-stage revision and septic versus aseptic revision was performed.

Results

The leading causes of rTKA in this mean 11 year follow-up study were aseptic loosening (36%) and periprosthetic joint infection (27%). At the final follow-up, there was a 89% survivorship of the implants. Patients showed a ROM of 114 ± 13°, HSS score of 78 ± 12, KKS objective score of 77 ± 16, KSS expectation and satisfaction score of 32 ± 11, KSS functional activity score of 50 ± 20, OKS of 30 ± 9, VAS of 53 ± 25 and EQ-5D index of 0.649. Functional outcome scores were not significantly altered in the analyzed subgroups.

Conclusions

In our 11 years follow-up, we obtained 89% implant survivorship. Measurements regarding functional outcome and pain showed results in the medium range of the respective scores, while patient satisfaction lay in the upper third. No significant differences in outcome scores between one- and two-stage revisions and septic versus aseptic revisions were observed.

Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

     

The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection

BackgroundDespite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.MethodsBetween January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation = 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system.ResultsAt the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n = 11), compared with 28% (n = 14) in group 1, 29% (n = 7) in group 3, and 26% (n = 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P = .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P = .107).Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4).ConclusionsThe results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.     

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants as Functional Prosthetic Spacers for Definitive Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter Study

BackgroundThere are limited data on the utility of a standard primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia as a functional prosthetic spacer in place of a conventional all cement spacer for the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this multicenter study was to retrospectively review (1) ultimate treatment success; (2) reimplantation rates; (3) reoperation rates; and (4) change in knee range of motion in patients managed with functional prosthetic spacers following TKA PJI.MethodsA retrospective review was performed for patients at 2 tertiary care centers who underwent a functional prosthetic spacer implantation as part of a functional single-stage (n = 57) or all cement spacer conventional two-stage (n = 137) revision arthroplasty protocol over a 5-year period. Outcomes including reinfection, reimplantation, and reoperation rates, success rate as defined by the Delphi criteria, and final range of motion were compared between the 2 cohorts at a minimum of 2-year follow-up.ResultsThere was no significant difference in reinfection (14.0 vs 24.1%), reoperation (19.3 vs 27.7%), or success rates (78.9 vs 70.8%; P > .05 for all) between the one-stage and two-stage revision TKA cohorts. Mean final total arc of motion was also similar between the 2 groups (105.8 vs 101.8 degrees, respectively).ConclusionFunctional prosthetic spacers offer the advantage of a single procedure with decreased overall hospitalization and improved cost-effectiveness with analogous success rates (78.9%) compared with two-stage exchange (70.8%) at mid-term follow-up. Although long-term data are required to determine its longevity and efficacy, the outcomes in this study are encouraging.Level of Evidence3.     

High Mortality After Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infection is Related to Preoperative Morbidity and the Disease Process but Not Treatment

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) mortality rate is approximately 20%. The etiology for high mortality remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether mortality was associated with preoperative morbidity (frailty), sequalae of treatment, or the PJI disease process itself.MethodsA multicenter observational study was completed comparing 184 patients treated with septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to a control group of 38 patients treated with aseptic revision TKA. Primary outcomes included time and the cause of death. Secondary outcomes included preoperative comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) measured preoperatively and at various postoperative timepoints.ResultsThe septic revision TKA cohort experienced earlier mortality compared to the aseptic cohort, with a higher mortality rate at 90 days, 1, 2, and 3 years after index revision surgery (P = .01). There was no significant difference for any single cause of death (P > .05 for each). The mean preoperative CCMI was higher (P = .005) in the septic revision TKA cohort. Both septic and aseptic cohorts experienced a significant increase in CCMI from the preoperative to 3 years postoperative (P < .0001 and P = .002) and time of death (P < .0001 both) timepoints. The septic revision TKA cohort had a higher CCMI 3 years postoperatively (P = .001) and at time of death (P = .046), but not one year postoperatively (P = .119).ConclusionCompared to mortality from aseptic revision surgery, septic revision TKA is associated with earlier mortality, but there is no single specific etiology. As quantified by changes in CCMI, PJI mortality was associated with both frailty and the PJI disease process, but not treatment.     

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BackgroundExtended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m² (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years).ResultsThe cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up.ConclusionsEOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Superior Survivorship for Posterior Stabilized Versus Constrained Condylar Articulations After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective,Comparative Analysis at Short-Term Follow-Up

BackgroundThe decision to use a posterior stabilized (PS) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) articulation in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has traditionally been based on surgeon preference and knee stability. The purpose of this study is to compare various outcomes and survivorship in RTKA with PS or CCK articulations.MethodsA retrospective comparative study of RTKA with CCK or PS articulations (PS = 106/CCK = 147) was performed with minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were patients with rotating hinged implants or non-CCK/PS constructs. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether implant articulation influenced (1) complications, (2) aseptic loosening, and (3) re-revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative implant survival were constructed with revision as the failure variable.ResultsPS articulation was an independent predictor of increased postoperative knee flexion (6.4°, P = .010) and the knee society functional score (10.0, P = .002). Survivorship was significantly reduced for CCK revision articulations when all-cause re-revision was the primary endpoint (P = .0003, log-rank test of equality). The primary reason for re-revision in the CCK cohort was a recurrent/persistent infection of the operative knee (N = 16, 37.2%), followed by aseptic loosening (N = 13, 30.2%). PS articulations conferred a lower likelihood of re-revision (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, P = .001), but articulation design was not associated with complications (OR 0.5, P = .123) or aseptic loosening (OR 2.6, P = .143).ConclusionThe PS articulation when used for appropriate indication conferred superior survivorship for the primary endpoint of all-cause re-revision and overall knee function when compared to the CCK articulation after RTKA. Implant articulation was not a predictor of aseptic loosening or complications.     

Are Patients With a History of Septic Arthritis Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty at Higher Risk for Revision Surgery? A Single-Center Study

BackgroundThe decision to perform a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on a previously infected knee is made complicated by the higher risk for both a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and early failure. There is currently no standard in the treatment strategy for this group of patients. We here report the outcomes of performing a primary TKA on patients with a prior septic knee arthritis. The aim of our study is to analyze the survival rates of patients with a history of septic arthritis undergoing TKA.MethodsFrom 2010 to 2018, all patients treated in our institution with a minimum follow-up of 1 year, who have previous histories of knee joint infections and underwent a primary TKA were included in the study. All patients underwent the same surgical protocol and were given systemic and local antibiotic treatment.ResultsOf the 68 knees, there were 4 surgical revisions (5.9%). These included 2 septic revisions due to PJI (2.9%), 1 open arthrolysis for arthrofibrosis (1.5%), and 1 aseptic revision for implant loosening (1.5%). Sixty-four (64) knees (94%) had survived without any surgical interventions and the Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an overall survivorship free from PJI of 97.1% at a mean of 5 years (range 1-9, standard deviation ±2.5 years).ConclusionTKA is a suitable option for patients with a prior septic arthritis of the knee, provided that proper surgical technique and the utilization of systemic and local antibiotics are employed.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Impact of Polyethylene Thickness on Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship in Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe thickness of the polyethylene bearing in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is determined by the depth of the tibial resection, degree of correctable deformity, and balance of the knee. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether polyethylene thickness in medial mobile-bearing UKA impacts clinical outcomes and survivorship.MethodsA retrospective review from 2004 to 2017 identified patients who underwent a primary mobile-bearing medial UKA with 2-year minimum follow-up or revision. A total of 2305 patients (3030 knees) met inclusion criteria. Patients were divided in 2 groups: thin bearing (group 1): 3-mm or 4-mm bearing and thick bearing (group 2): ≥ 5 mm. The thin group consisted of 2640 knees (87%), whereas the thick group had 390 knees (13%). Preoperative and postoperative demographics, range of motion, Knee Society scores, complications, and reoperations were evaluated.ResultsMean follow-up was 5.2 years (range, 0.5 to 12.6). There was no significant difference between groups in postoperative range of motion or Knee Society scores (P > .05). Manipulations were performed in 1.3% of patients and not significantly different between groups. The all-cause revision rate for group 1 was 4.02% and group 2 was 4.58% (P = .6). Revision rates for tibial aseptic loosening were significantly higher in group 2 (1.8%) than those in group 1 (0.7%) (P = .04). There was no significant difference in failure rates between groups for tibial collapse or fracture, femoral aseptic loosening, arthritic progression, bearing dislocation, or other cause of revision.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that thicker bearings in medial UKA increased the risk of tibial aseptic loosening, but not all-cause failures or clinical outcomes.     

Does Metabolic Syndrome Impact the Risk of Reoperation,Revision, or Complication After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasingly frequent condition characterized by insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. This study evaluated implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of primary TKAs performed in patients who have MetS.MethodsUtilizing our institutional total joint registry, 2,063 primary TKAs were performed in patients with a diagnosis of MetS according to the World Health Organization criteria. MetS patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and surgical year to those who did not have the condition. The World Health Organization’s body mass index (BMI) classification was utilized to evaluate the effect of obesity within MetS patients. Kaplan–Meier methods were utilized to determine implant survivorship. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Knee Society scores. The mean follow-up was 5 years.ResultsMetS and non-MetS patients did not have significant differences in 5-year implant survivorship free from any reoperation (P = .7), any revision (P = .2), and reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; P = .2). When stratifying, patients with MetS and BMI >40 had significantly decreased 5-year survivorship free from any revision (95 versus 98%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.1, P = .005) and reoperation for PJI (97 versus 99%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.2, P = .02). Both MetS and non-MetS groups experienced significant improvements in Knee Society Scores (77 versus 78, respectively; P < .001) that were not significantly different (P = .3).ConclusionMetS did not significantly increase the risk of any reoperation after TKA; however, MetS patients with BMI >40 had a two-fold risk of any revision and reoperation for PJI. These results suggest that obesity is an important condition within MetS criteria and remains an independent risk factor.Level of EvidenceLevel 3, Case-control study.     

Aseptic Reoperations Within 1 Year of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Markedly Increase the Risk of Later Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundDespite the high rate of success of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), some patients are candidates for early aseptic reoperation. The goal of this study is to evaluate the risk of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients treated with an aseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA.MethodsA retrospective review of our total joint registry compared 249 primary TKAs requiring an aseptic reoperation within 1 year following index arthroplasty to a control group of 17,867 TKAs not requiring reoperation within 1 year. Patients were divided into groups based on time from index TKA: (1) 90 days or less (114 TKAs) and (2) 91 to 365 days (135 TKAs). Mean age was 68 years with 57% female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.ResultsAt 2 years postoperatively, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days subsequently had a 9% PJI rate, while patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation between 91 and 365 days subsequently had a 3% PJI rate. The control group had a 0.4% PJI rate. Compared to the control group, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days had an elevated risk of PJI (hazard ratio, 9; P < .0001), as did patients who had a reoperation between 91 and 365 days (hazard ratio, 4; P < .0001).ConclusionAseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA was associated with a notably increased risk of subsequent PJI.     

Diagnostic and Invasive Colonoscopy Are Not Risk Factors for Revision Surgery Due to Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundColonoscopy is routinely performed for colorectal cancer screening in patients who have a preexisting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) prostheses. However, colonoscopy is theorized to provoke transient bacteremia, providing a potential nidus for periprosthetic joint infection. This study aimed to investigate the risk of aseptic and septic revision surgery in patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy or invasive colonoscopy within one year following UKA, TKA, or THA.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a national database. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology. In total, 52,891 patients underwent UKA, 1,049,218 underwent TKA, and 526,296 underwent THA. Data were analyzed with univariate analysis preceding multivariable logistic regressions to investigate outcomes of interest at 2 and 3 years from the index procedure.ResultsDiagnostic colonoscopy resulted in no increase in odds of all-cause or septic revision surgery for any prostheses. At both time points, invasive colonoscopy resulted in lower odds of all-cause revision (P < .05) for patients with UKA, decreased odds of septic revision (P < .001) for patients with TKA, and decreased odds of both all-cause and septic revision (P < .05) for patients with THA.ConclusionOur results show that diagnostic colonoscopy was not a significant risk factor for revision following UKA, TKA, or THA. Paradoxically, invasive colonoscopy was protective against revision, even with very minimal use of antibiotic prophylaxis observed. This study addresses the theory that colonoscopy procedures may threaten an existing joint prosthesis via transient bacteremia and shows no increase in revision outcomes following colonoscopy.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

The Performance of Diagnostic Tests for Identifying Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Failed Partial Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundIndications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and patello-femoral arthroplasty are expanding. Despite the lower published infection rates for UKA and patello-femoral arthroplasty than total knee arthroplasty, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a devastating complication and diagnostic thresholds for commonly utilized tests have not been investigated recently. Thus, this study evaluated if diagnostic thresholds for PJI in patients who had a failed partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) align more closely with previously reported thresholds specific to UKA or the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection.MethodsWe identified 109 knees in 100 patients that underwent PKA with eventual conversion to total knee arthroplasty within a single healthcare system from 2000 to 2021. Synovial fluid nucleated cell count and synovial polymorphonuclear percentage in addition to preoperative serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum C-reactive protein, and serum white blood cell count were compared with Student’s t-tests between septic and aseptic cases. Receiver operating characteristic curves and Youden’s index were used to assess diagnostic performance and the optimal cutoff point of each test.ResultsSynovial nucleated cell count, synovial polymorphonuclear percentage, and serum C-reactive protein demonstrated excellent discrimination for diagnosing PJI with an area under the curve of 0.97 and lower cutoff values than the previously determined UKA specific criteria. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rateESR demonstrated good ability with an area under the curve of 0.89.ConclusionSerum and synovial fluid diagnostic thresholds for PJI in PKAs align more closely with the thresholds established by the 2018 International Consensus Meeting as compared to previously proposed thresholds specific to UKA.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.     

High Survival Rate and Very Low Wear of Lateral Unicompartmental Arthroplasty at Long Term: A Case Series of 54 Cases at a Mean Follow-Up of 17 Years

BackgroundSurvivorship of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has progressively improved. However, there are few studies describing long-term results, and no study reports on polyethylene (PE) wear in lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty.The aims of this study are to determine the survival rate of lateral UKA with a fixed, all-PE bearing, and the PE wear of the tibial implant at a minimum of 15 years follow-up.MethodsFrom January 1988 to October 2003, we performed 54 lateral UKAs in 52 patients. All patients had isolated lateral osteoarthritis (OA). The mean age at the index procedure was 65.4 ± 11 years. Thirty-nine UKAs were available for follow-up (30 alive and 9 dead after 15 years). Twelve patients had died before 15 years and 3 patients were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 17.9 years (range, 15-23 years).ResultsAt the final follow-up, 8 knees of 39 (20.5%) had a surgical revision. The cumulative survival rate was 82.1% at 15 years and 79.4% at 20 years. The main reason of revision was progression of OA (87.5%), followed by aseptic loosening of the tibial component (12.5%). With a mean follow-up of 17.9 years, the mean PE wear was 0.061 mm/y. There was no radiographic loosening in the surviving implants and no revisions for wear. The mean functional International Knee Society score was 66.5 ± 26.8, with a mean objective score of 84.4 points ± 13.2. In the population without revision, 90.5% were satisfied or very satisfied at the latest follow-up.ConclusionLateral UKA with a fixed, all-PE tibial bearing and a femoral resurfacing implant presents a high survivorship at long term, with very low PE wear.     

15-Year Follow-Up of Mobile Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

IntroductionMedial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a successful treatment for antero-medial osteoarthritis. However, there are few published studies on the long-term survival of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to review the 15-year minimum outcomes and survival of a mobile-bearing medial UKA.MethodsA retrospective review was performed between July 2004 and December 2006 of all patients who underwent a medial UKA eligible for a minimum of 15-year follow-up. The initial query revealed 299 patients (349 knees). One hundred-seventeen patients died or were lost to follow-up, leaving 182 patients (219 knees) for analyses. Clinical outcomes and survivorship were analyzed.ResultsThere were 59 implant-related reoperations which occurred at a mean of 10 years (range, 0 to 16 years). The most common reasons for reoperation were arthritic progression (9.1%) and aseptic loosening (9.1%). The 10-year survival with revision to TKA was 89% (95% confidence interval: 86% to 92.4%), and the 15-year survival was 84.1% (95% confidence interval: 80.3% to 88%). There were no statistically significant differences in survival between sex, body mass index, and age. Patients who were not revised had statistically significant improvements in knee range of motion and Knee Society scores.ConclusionsThis study found similar long-term survival of a medial mobile-bearing UKA to published total knee arthroplasty outcomes. The implant evaluated in this study has undergone subsequent improvements in instrumentation and design. Further analyses should be performed on the long-term outcomes of the current implant platform.     

Irrigation,Débridement,and Implant Retention for Recurrence of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundWe investigated clinical/functional outcomes and implant survivorship in patients who underwent 2-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), experienced acute PJI recurrence, and underwent irrigation, débridement, and polyethylene exchange (IDPE) with retention of stable implant.MethodsTwenty-four patients (24 knees) were identified who underwent 2-stage revision TKA for PJI, experienced acute PJI recurrence, and then underwent IDPE between 2005 and 2016 (minimum 2-year follow-up). After IDPE, intravenous antibiotics (6 weeks) and oral suppression therapy (minimum 6 months) were administered. Data were compared with 1:2 matched control group that underwent 2-stage revision TKA for chronic PJI and did not receive IDPE.ResultsAverage IDPE group follow-up was 3.8 years (range, 2.4-7.2). Reinfection rate after IDPE was 29% (n = 7): 3 of 7 underwent second IDPE (2 of 3 had no infection recurrence) and 5 (one was patient who had recurrent infection after second IDPE) underwent another 2-stage revision TKA. Control group reinfection rate was 27% (n = 13) (P = .85). For IDPE group, mean time to reinfection after 2-stage revision TKA was 4.6 months (range, 1-8 months) (patients presented with acute symptoms less than 3 weeks duration). At latest follow-up, mean Knee Society Score was 70 (range, 35-85) in IDPE group and 75 (range, 30-85) in control group (P = .53).ConclusionIDPE for acute reinfection following 2-stage revision TKA with well-fixed implants had a 71% success rate. These patients had comparable functional outcome as patients with no IDPE after 2-stage revision TKA. IDPE followed by long-term suppression antibiotic therapy should be considered in patients with acute infection and stable components.