Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context.

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Aims

Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Aims. Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. Methods. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5). Results. Eight knees failed directly related to lack of infection control (16%), and two patients (two knees) died within the first year for causes not directly related, giving an initial success rate of 79% (38/48). Secondary success rate after a subsequent procedure was 91% (44/48 knees). From the initially retained spacers, four knees (22%) required a second-stage revision for continuous symptoms and one (5%) for an acute infection. There were no significant differences regarding the failure rate due to infection, ROM, and QoL assessment between patients with a retained first-stage procedure and those who underwent a second-stage operation. Conclusion. Our protocol of two-stage exchange for infected knee arthroplasties with an articulating spacer and using new primary knee implants achieves adequate infection control. Retained first-stage operations achieve comparable results in selected cases, with no difference in infection control, ROM, and QoL assessment in comparison to patients with completed two-stage revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):852–860

Aims

Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community.

Aim. Antibiotic loaded spacers are often used during a two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) both for its mechanical properties and as a means for local antibiotic delivery. The main goal of this study is to compare the rate of positive cultures during reimplantation with the use of different antibiotic loaded spacers: aminoglycoside only vs. combined glycopeptide/aminoglycoside vs. combined glycopeptide/carbapenem/aminoglycoside. Method. We retrospectively evaluated every two-stage exchange procedures for infected hip/knee arthroplasty between 2012–2018. Microbiological findings in the first and second stage were registered as well as the type of spacer and antibiotic(s) used. Cases in whom no cultures were obtained during reimplantation and cases without sufficient data on antibiotic(s) used in cement spacers were excluded. Results. Fifty-four cases were included (20THA and 34TKA), with an overall rate of positive cultures during reimplantation of 18.5% (10/54). The rate of positive cultures was statistically significant higher among spacers with monotherapy with aminoglycoside compared to spacers with combined antibiotic therapy- 35.7% (5/14) vs. 12.5% (5/40) respectively(p<0.05). Comparing those with combined glycopeptide/aminoglycoside (2/19) with triple glycopeptide/carbapenem/aminoglycoside therapy (3/21) there was no significant difference. Microorganisms present during the second stage were mostly staphylococci (coagulase-negative in four cases, S.aureus in three), Corynebacterium striatum, Enterococcus faecalis, C.albicans in one case each. In most cases (8/10), the isolated microorganism was the same as the first stage and was resistant to the antibiotic(s) used in the spacer in seven cases. Failure rate with the need for subsequent surgery was significantly higher at 60% (6/10) in cases with positive cultures at reimplantation compared to 4.5% (2/44) for those with negative cultures during reimplantation(p=0.0005). Conclusions. It has recently been suggested that adding a glycopeptide to the spacer may be advantageous when compared to spacers with aminoglycoside monotherapy, as it will produce significantly lower rates of positive cultures during reimplantation which have been shown to increase the risk of subsequent failure as is the case in our study. Local unavailability of obtaining powder aminoglycosides has driven us to manually add high doses of vancomycin and meropenem to commercially available low-dose gentamicin cement in many of our spacers and they seem to to perform just as well as commercially available vancomycin/gentamicin combination. Although many other variables not considered in this study may influence the rate of positive cultures during the second stage (quality of initial debridement, systemic antibiotic therapy, etc.), we believe these results portrait a sufficiently accurate picture of clinical results with the use of different spacers

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static vs. articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years. At our institution our choice of spacer for 2 stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat 2 stage, overall infection control was 98%. In addition, we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores. While the articulated spacer was our treatment of choice in 2 stage exchange around 2012, the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes. More recently as of Sept 2015 we have used an all polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 28 of these and in 80% of cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practi

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the results of 16S/28S rRNA sequencing with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and synovial fluid analysis in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years. At our institution our choice of spacer for two-stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two stage overall infection control was 98%. In addition we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores. While the articulated spacer was our treatment of choice in two-stage exchange around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), our institution continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all-polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilisation of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one-stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes. More recently, as of Sept 2015, we have used an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 12 of these and in all cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practice

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in north America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years. At our institution our choice of spacer for 2 stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two stage overall infection control was 98%. In addition we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores. While the articulated spacers was our treatment of choice in 2 stage exchange around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), at our institution we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes. More recently as of Sept 2015 we have used an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 12 of these and in all cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practice

Two-stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years. At our institution our choice of spacer for 2-stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two-stage, overall infection control was 98%. In addition, we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores. While the articulated spacers were our treatment of choice in 2-stage exchange, around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee). At our institution, we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all-polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. Around the same time as we instituted the change in articulated spacers, results out of Europe were showing promising results with one-stage exchange. In September 2015, our technique was modified to now include an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. To date we have no results but it is our hope that a high percent of these will achieve stable fixation and will then have a one-stage exchange

The December 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Albumin and complications in knee arthroplasty; Tantalum: a knee fixation for all seasons?; Dynamic knee alignment; Tibial component design in UKA; Managing the tidal wave of revision knee arthroplasty; Scoring pain in TKR; Does anyone have a ‘normal’ tibial slope?; XLPE in TKR? A five-year clinical study; Spacers and infected revision arthroplasties; Dialysis and arthroplasty

The purpose of the following study was to present the general strategy for preserving the lower extremity by knee arthrodesis and to analyze the outcome of knee arthrodeses performed by a special modular system. Between 2009 and 2014 35 knee arthrodeses were performed. 23 patients were male, 12 female. The average age was 66 years (42 to 83 years). The patients underwent an average of 6 operations because of infected knee arthroplasties previous to the knee arthrodesis. The main pathogen was S. epidermidis followed by MRSA. The arthrodeses system included a non cemented femoral and tibial stem (press fit application plus two static locking screws). These were connected by a special stem to stem clamp. Immediate postoperative full weight-bearing was possible in 32 of 35 patients. We saw 4 recurrent infections (all connected to the patients, who did not show a full weight bearing after knee arthrodesis). In two cases re-revision surgery was successful and lead to a sufficient re-arthrodesis. In two cases above-knee-amputation was necessary. Peri-implant fractures were detected in 3 cases. All of them could be cured by changing the arthrodesis stem and to a longer one bridging the fracture. In one case a stem loosening was seen. This was as well addressed by the use of a longer stem. Knee arthrodesis by a modular non cemented system is a god alternative in order to preserve the weight-bearing lower extremity. The complication rate is rather high due to the fact, that this procedure presents the final alternative to do so in patients, who are in extremis in terms of a long lasting aggressive peri-arthroplasty infection the lead to massive destruction of the soft tissue around the knee and a significant loss of function

Knee arthrodesis is a potential salvage procedure for limb preservation after failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) due to infection. In this study, we evaluated the outcome of single-stage knee arthrodesis using an intramedullary cemented coupled nail without bone-on-bone fusion after failed and infected TKA with extensor mechanism deficiency. Between 2002 and 2012, 27 patients (ten female, 17 male; mean age 68.8 years; 52 to 87) were treated with septic single-stage exchange. Mean follow-up duration was 67.1months (24 to 143, n = 27) (minimum follow-up 24 months) and for patients with a minimum follow-up of five years 104.9 (65 to 143,; n = 13). A subjective patient evaluation (Short Form (SF)-36) was obtained, in addition to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The mean VAS score was 1.44 (SD 1.48). At final follow-up, four patients had recurrent infections after arthrodesis (14.8%). Of these, three patients were treated with a one-stage arthrodesis nail exchange; one of the three patients had an aseptic loosening with a third single-stage exchange, and one patient underwent knee amputation for uncontrolled sepsis at 108 months. All patients, including the amputee, indicated that they would choose arthrodesis again. Data indicate that a single-stage knee arthrodesis offers an acceptable salvage procedure after failed and infected TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:649–53.

In this paper we make the case for the use of single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty

Radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacement remains an essential part of routine care and follow-up. Appreciation of the various measurements that can be identified radiologically is important. It is likely that routine plain radiographs will continue to be used, although there has been a trend towards using newer technologies such as CT, especially in a failing knee, where it provides more detailed information, albeit with a higher radiation exposure.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the radiological parameters used to evaluate knee replacements, describe how these are measured or classified, and review the current literature to determine their efficacy where possible.