Mid-term results of two-stage revision of total knee arthroplasty using a mobile (dynamic) cement spacer in the treatment of periprosthetic infections (original) (raw)
Related papers
Acta Scientific Orthopaedics
Background: Two stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty is the golden standard of treatment, but it has a large number of reinfections and outcomes of re-implantations are far from optimal. Many patients after spacer implantation are not being reimplanted during the first 6 months due to multiple reasons. Method: In this prospective study 160 patients (160 joints) who underwent two stage revision for septic knee arthroplasty were included. In all cases articulating spacers with primary metal femoral component and armed intramedullary spacers (dowels) were implanted. 4 patients were lost to follow-up within a year after the spacer implantation with confirmed infection sedation at the first follow up in 3 months after spacer implantation and were excluded from the study. Out of the rest 156 cases in 81 case liner of bone cement was used. In 75 cases we used polyethylene liner. Medical comorbidities, type of knee replacement (primary vs. revision), culture results, serum hemoglobin level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Knee Society Score, knee range of motion, were all recorded before the first spacer implantation, in 3 months and at the last follow-up in average 56.35±18.77 months after reimplantation or spacer with poly liner implantation. Results: After the first stage infection relapsed in 33% (N = 27) of the cases in cement liner group and in 8% (N = 6: 4 during the first 6 months after the 1 st spacer implantation and 2 later) of cases in poly liner group. At the last follow-up control over infection with functioning articulating knee was achieved in 85% and 94.7% of cases, respectively. Clinical and functional results in poly liner group were significantly better than in cement liner group at all periods of follow-up (p ≤ 0,05). Conclusion: superior results of poly liner spacers over cement liner spacers made us completely abandon cement liner spacer technique and broaden the indications for so called temporary-permanent spacers with polyethylene liner in cases of infection in the knee with possibility to achieve knee stability with non-constrained spacer. Success of temporary-permanent spacers implantation may lead us towards wider use of one stage revisions in "high risk" deep infection after knee arthroplasty.
Two-stage reimplantation, with interval antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer, is the preferred treatment of prosthetic knee joint infections. In medically compromised hosts with prior failed surgeries, the outcomes are poor. Articulating spacers in such patients render the knee unstable; static spacers have risks of dislocation and extensor mechanism injury. We examined 58 infected total knee arthroplasties with extensive bone and soft tissue loss, treated with resection arthroplasty and intramedullary tibiofemoral rod and antibiotic-laden cement spacer. Thirty-seven patients underwent delayed reimplantation. Most patients (83.8%) were free from recurrent infection at mean follow-up of 29.4 months. Reinfection occurred in 16.2%, which required debridement. Twenty-one patients with poor operative risks remained with the spacer for 11.4 months. All patients, during spacer phase, had brace-free ambulation with simulated tibiofemoral fusion, without bone loss or loss of limb length
International Journal of Medical Sciences, 2021
Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty. In the setting of chronic infections, the two-staged approach has traditionally been the preferred treatment method. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal period of rest between the first and second stage. Furthermore, we analyzed potentially outcome-relevant parameters, such as general and local conditions and the presence of difficult-to-treat or unidentified microorganisms, with regard to their impact on successful treatment of PJI. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for all patients treated for PJI at our institution. Seventy-seven patients who had undergone two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the knee were included into the study. Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers were used for all patients. Results: After a median follow-up time of 24.5 months, infection had reoccurred in 14 (18.7%) patients. A prolonged spacer-retention period of more than 83 days was related to a significantly higher proportion of reinfections. Furthermore, significant compromising local conditions of the prosthetic tissue and surrounding skin, as well as repeated spacer-exchanges between first-and second-stage surgery, negatively influenced the outcome. Neither the patients' age nor gender exerted a significant influence on the outcome regarding reinfection rates for patients' age or gender. Conclusions: We observed the best outcome regarding infection control in patients who had undergone second-stage surgery within 12 weeks after first-stage surgery. Nearly 90% of these patients stayed free from infection until the final follow-up. An increased number of performed spacer-exchanges and a bad local extremity grade also had a negative impact on the outcome.
Antibiotics
Aim: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 403 aseptic revision knee arthroplasties performed between January 2013 and March 2021 (148 revisions of a unicompartmental prosthesis, 188 revisions of a bicondylar total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 41 revisions of an axis-guided prosthesis, and 26 revisions of only one component of a surface replacement prosthesis). The bone cement Copal G+C (Heraeus Medical, Wertheim, Germany) with two antibiotics—gentamycin and clindamycin—was used for the fixation of the new implant. The follow-up period was 53.4 ± 27.9 (4.0–115.0) months. Results: Five patients suffered from PJI within follow-up (1.2%). The revision rate for any reason was 8.7%....
Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection With a Two-stage Protocol Using Static Spacers
Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015
Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is a standard approach for treating total knee arthroplasty periprosthetic joint infection in the United States, but whether this should be performed with a static antibiotic spacer or an articulating one that allows range of motion before reimplantation remains controversial. It is unclear if the advantages of articulating spacers (easier surgical exposure during reimplantation and improved postoperative flexion) outweigh the disadvantages of increased cost and complexity in the setting of similar rates of infection eradication. The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the ultimate range of motion; and (2) to determine the proportion of patients who remained free of infection at a minimum 2 years after treatment with static antibiotic spacers as part of a two-stage revision TKA for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. Between 1999 and 2011, we treated 121 patients with chronically infected TKAs, of whom three had medical comorbidi...
Two-Stage Reimplantation in Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1988
Twostage reimplantation is considered the gold standard for the management of periprosthetic joint infection. The first stage involves the removal of the prosthesis, followed by extensive debridement of all nonviable tissues, synovectomy, irrigation, and reaming of the medullary canals. Once the joint has been prepared, antibioticimpregnated cement beads and/or spacer are inserted. Antibioticimpregnated spacers are now more commonly used, and an increasing number of orthopaedic surgeons are using articulating spacers if indicated. Antibiotics are then prescribed to the patient based on the sensitivities of the infecting organism. The duration of systemic antibiotic use is decreasing, and short courses of antibiotic therapy have been shown to be as efficacious as prolonged therapy between the first and second stages. The second stage of the procedure involves removal of the antibioticimpregnated cement beads and/or spacer, repeat irrigation and debridement, and final reconstruction with revision components. While twostage reimplantation was considered the gold standard in many parts of the world, recent studies have demonstrated that it is associated with a considerable failure rate. This may be due to the lack of accurate diagnostic tools for infection eradication, and future investigation of risk factors for failure of the twostage reimplantation should be conducted.
Medicine
The aim of this study was to determine whether the infection control rate of a modified debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol (DAIR with antibiotic-impregnated cement beads) is comparable to that of 2-stage revision for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We also aimed to determine whether this modified DAIR technique produced better clinical results than those obtained using 2-stage revision in terms of functional outcome, range of motion (ROM), and patient satisfaction at 2 years after surgery. This retrospective comparative study included patients who underwent modified DAIR (7 patients, 9 knees) or 2-stage revision (8 patients, 9 knees) for acute PJI of the knee joint. Infection control rate, functional outcome measured using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, ROM and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups. There was no difference in infection control rates between the modified DAIR and 2-stage revision groups (78% vs 78%, respectively). In contrast, surgical outcome in the modified DAIR group was tended to be better than 2-stage revision group, but it did not reach statistical significance. Median maximal range of flexion was 103°in the modified DAIR group and it was 90°in the 2-stage group (P = .191). In addition, the median WOMAC function score was 24 in the modified DAIR group and it was 30 in the 2-stage group (P = .076). Median patient satisfaction measured using visual analogue scale was 8 in the modified DAIR group and 5 in the 2-stage group (P = .069). The infection control rates of the modified DAIR protocol and 2-stage revision protocol were similar for the treatment of acute PJI of the knee joint. However, the modified DAIR protocol could not provide substantially increased functional outcomes and patient satisfaction compared to 2-stage revision. Therefore, the modified DAIR technique should be considered to be of limited use in patients with high surgical morbidity. Abbreviations: ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, BMI = body mass index, CRP = C-reactive protein, DAIR = debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention, IRB = institutional review board, PJI = periprosthetic joint infection, ROM = range of motion, TKA = total knee arthroplasty, VAS = visual analogue scale, WOMAC = Westerm Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Arthritis Index.
The use of spacers (static and mobile) in infection knee arthroplasty
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 2015
Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the treatment of choice in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. It may be performed in either a single stage or two stages. In the latter option, between stages, an antibiotic-loaded spacer may be used to maintain a certain amount of joint stability and mobility after the infected implant is removed, adding an intra-articular concentration of antibiotics. There are two types of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: static and dynamic. Static spacers basically create a temporary arthrodesis with antibiotic-loaded cement and usually are handmade within the surgical field. Dynamic spacers can be created intraoperatively by using different tools or may be prepackaged by the manufacturer; they allow range of motion between stages. In this article, the authors review the indications, surgical techniques, and results for static and dynamic spacers in two-stage revision TKA.
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2017
Introduction Chronic periprosthetic infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is most commonly addressed with a two-stage exchange procedure. The purpose of this study is to examine the natural history of patients who have undergone prosthesis removal and spacer placement and evaluate risk factors for outcomes other than reimplantation. Methods Patients who underwent removal of an infected TKA and placement of an antibiotic spacer for PJI were identified in a Medicare database. Patients with a study outcome within one year were then identified: 1) in hospital mortality, 2) knee arthrodesis, 3) amputation, 4) repeat debridement procedure without reimplantation, and 4) reimplantation. Independent risk factors for these outcomes was evaluated with a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results 18,533 patients were included. Within 1 year postoperatively, 691 patients (3.7%) died in a hospital setting, 852 patients (4.5%) underwent a knee arthrodesis, 574 patients (3.1%) underwent an amputation, 2,683 patients (14.5%) underwent a repeat debridement procedure without being reimplanted, 2,323 patients (12.5%) retained their spacer, and 11,420 patients (61.6%) patients underwent spacer removal and reimplantation within 1 year. Numerous independent patient related risk factors for these outcomes were identified. Conclusion M
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2020
Purpose Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Antibiotic cement spacers can include cement-based spacers (CBS), new components (NEW), and autoclaved components (ACL). The factors that most influence post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival were determined. Methods A retrospective database review of patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2008 to 2014 was performed. There were 85 patients, 25 patients and 30 patients in CBS, NEW and ACL groups, respectively. Patient, disease and surgical characteristics were collected and analyzed. Post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival was modeled using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard modeling was then performed to identify risk factors associated with implant failure. Results Overall PRP survival was 82% in 140 unilateral TKAs. PRP survival between groups was 81%, 96% and 73% within the minimum 2-year follow-up period, respectively. There was a difference in median interval-to-reimplantation between groups (CBS, 72.0 days; NEW, 111.0 days; ACL, 84.0 days, p = 0.003). Adjusting for time-to-reimplantation, NEW spacers demonstrated greater PRP survival compared with ACL spacers (p = 0.044), and a trend towards greater survival compared with CBS spacers (p = 0.086). Excluding early failures (< 90 days), NEW spacers still demonstrated greater survival than ACL spacers (p = 0.046). Lower volume (≤ 10 within this series) surgeons tended to use more CBS spacers, while higher volume surgeons were comfortable with ACL spacers. Conclusions There was greater PRP survival with NEW spacers. NEW spacers also demonstrated an increased inter-stage interval, likely because of increased comfort and motion. There were spacer choice differences between low-and highvolume surgeons. Level of evidence III.