Abstract
Historical perspective: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular exchange has historically been the recommended treatment for acute post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and acute hematogenous PJI. The theory supporting this practice was that because the bacterial glycocalyx had not yet formed by these early time points, by simply debriding the intra-articular bacterial load and exchanging the modular parts, one could potentially eradicate the infection, retain the prior components, and minimise morbidity to the patient. More recently, literature is coming out suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case.
The vast majority of published research on the outcomes following I&D for treatment of PJI has focused on either cohorts of total knee arthroplasty patients or combined cohorts of total hip and knee patients. For this reason, it is difficult to tease out the differential success rate of periprosthetic hip vs. knee infections. Sherrell et al. performed a systematic review of the existing literature and created a table detailing the failure rates for various published articles on I&D for periprosthetic TKA infection.
Since it is the glycocalyx that has been thought to be the reason for treatment failure of many cases of PJI treated with I&D, many authors have implicated staphylococcal species as a predictor of a negative outcome with failure rates ranging from 30–35%. Methicillin resistant organisms have been shown to be particularly difficult to eradicate with an isolated I&D, with a 72–84% failure rate at 2 year follow-up. Interestingly, a recent study by Odum et al. suggests that neither the infecting microbe, nor the antibiotic resistance profile of the organism, as has been classically thought, actually predicts success of I&D.
Previous reports have indicated that the ability of I&D to control infection is related to the duration of symptoms and its timing relative to the index surgery. However, more recent literature is coming out to support the contrary. Koyonos et al. reviewed the outcomes of a series of 138 cases of PJI treated with I&D based on acuity of infection and concluded that an I&D has a limited role in controlling PJI regardless of acuity.
Intuitively, the physical health of the host/patient should influence the success of I&D for treatment of PJI. Several authors have shown that an immunocompromised state is a predictor of treatment failure. Furthermore, Azzam et al. reported that patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, a proxy of severity of medical comorbidities, had a significantly higher failure rate.
Although potentially appealing due to relative ease of execution and minimal surgical morbidity, the ability to successfully eradicate infection with an arthroscopic procedure may be compromised. Given the inability to perform a radical surgical debridement, nor exchange modular components, arthroscopic debridement should be used with extreme reservation in any case of PJI, regardless of the host, nature of the infecting organism, or acuity of infection.
I&D as a conservative, less morbid alternative to two-stage exchange - There is a growing body of literature to suggest that an I&D with modular component exchange may not be the benign, less morbid alternative to the ‘gold standard’ two-stage exchange arthroplasty. In fact, Fehring et al. has reported that the success of a two-stage antibiotic spacer exchange arthroplasty may be compromised by an initial I&D. They found that patients who were initially treated with an I&D only had a 66% chance of eradicating infection following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, in contrast to historical reports of 80–90% success.
