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.

We report a series of 17 exchange arthroplasties for infected knee prostheses, ten one-stage and seven two-stage procedures. The method proved successful in controlling infection and restoring function. In two-stage exchanges the interval between the stages was managed by using a prosthesis as a spacer, and acrylic cement beads containing the appropriate antibiotic to provide high local concentrations. Three one-stage procedures had recurrence of infection, but were successfully treated by further exchange operations. All patients had satisfactory function and there have been no serious complications. We recommend this modified two-stage technique for the management of infected knee arthroplasties

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

All major studies have incorporated the use of prolonged courses of parenteral or oral antibiotic therapy in the management of two-stage revision of an infected total knee arthroplasty. We present a series of 59 consecutive patients, all with microbiologically-proven deep infection of a total knee arthroplasty, in whom a prolonged course of antibiotic therapy was not routinely used. The mean follow-up was 56.4 months (24 to 114).

Of the 38 patients who underwent a staged exchange, infection was successfully eradicated in 34 (89%) but recurrent or persistent infection was present in four (11%). Our rate of cure for infection is similar to that reported elsewhere. We conclude that a prolonged course of antibiotic therapy seems not to alter the incidence of recurrent or persistent infection. The costs of the administration of antibiotics are high and such a regime may be unnecessary.

The PROSTALAC functional spacer is made of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement but has a small metal-on-polythene articular surface. We have used it as an interim spacer in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee replacement. PROSTALAC allows continuous rehabilitation between stages as it maintains good alignment and stability of the knee and a reasonable range of movement. It also helps to maintain the soft-tissue planes, which facilitates the second-stage procedure.

We reviewed 45 consecutive patients, treated over a period of nine years. The mean follow-up was for 48 months (20 to 112). At final review, there was no evidence of infection in 41 patients (91%); only one had a recurrent infection with the same organism. There was improvement in the Hospital for Special Surgery knee score between stages and at final review. The range of movement was maintained between stages. Complications were primarily related to the extensor mechanism and stability of the knee between stages. Both of these problems decreased with refinement of the design of the implant.

The rate of cure of the infection in our patients was similar to that using other methods. Movement of the knee does not appear to hinder control of infection.

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

In recent years articulating cement spacers have been used to treat infected knee arthroplasty. The aim has been to better maintain tissue planes and joint mobility thereby improving second stage re-implantation surgery. Two groups of patients treated for infected knee arthroplasty were reviewed. Twenty-six patients with articulating and forty patients with static antibiotic-impregnated methyl-methacrylate spacers were compared. The articulating spacers demonstrated easier surgical exposure at second stage and improved range of knee motion after re-implantation. There was no compromise in the rate of infection eradication with articulating spacers. Bone loss at revision was independent of spacer type. To compare the results of patients treated with articulating versus static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for infected knee arthroplasty. Articulating cement spacers facilitate re-implantation surgery by maintaining tissue planes and joint mobility without compromising joint stability or eradication rate of infection. Patients demonstrate better range of motion and less complications related to the extensor mechanism with the articulated spacer. Antibiotic impregnated methyl-methacrylate spacers have become a mainstay in two-stage revision arthroplasty for sepsis. It is thought that articulating cement spacers facilitate prosthesis re-insertion by better maintaining tissue planes and joint mobility between stages. In the articulating group fewer extensile exposure methods were required at second stage prosthesis reimplantation (19% vs 36 %). No tibial tuberosity osteotomies have been required since using the articulating spacer. The articulating group demonstrated a significantly improved range of flexion compared to the static group(106 vs 97 degrees- p=0.045) and had fewer patients with significant loss of extension or quadriceps lag. Eradication of infection was improved in the articulating group (92% vs 82%) but at shorter average follow-up. The need for augments and stabilized prostheses at revision surgery as a measure of bone loss was no different between the groups but was related to the number of prior surgical procedures. Twenty-six patients treated with articulating spacers were compared to a matched consecutive group of forty patients treated with static spacers. Minimum follow-up was twelve months from second stage re-implantation (average twenty-two months articulating, forty months static). Funding: No direct funding from any commercial source has been received for this study. The primary author’s fellowship position is partially funded by Smith and Nephew Richards Inc

In recent years articulating cement spacers have been used to treat infected knee arthroplasty. The aim has been to better maintain tissue planes and joint mobility thereby improving second stage re-implantation surgery. Two groups of patients treated for infected knee arthroplasty were reviewed. Twenty-six patients with articulating and forty patients with static antibiotic-impregnated methyl-methacrylate spacers were compared. The articulating spacers demonstrated easier surgical exposure at second stage and improved range of knee motion after re-implantation. There was no compromise in the rate of infection eradication with articulating spacers. Bone loss at revision was independent of spacer type. To compare the results of patients treated with articulating versus static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for infected knee arthroplasty. Articulating cement spacers facilitate re-implantation surgery by maintaining tissue planes and joint mobility without compromising joint stability or eradication rate of infection. Patients demonstrate better range of motion and less complications related to the extensor mechanism with the articulated spacer. Antibiotic impregnated methyl-methacrylate spacers have become a mainstay in two-stage revision arthroplasty for sepsis. It is thought that articulating cement spacers facilitate prosthesis re-insertion by better maintaining tissue planes and joint mobility between stages. In the articulating group fewer extensile exposure methods were required at second stage prosthesis reimplantation (19% vs 36 %). No tibial tuberosity osteotomies have been required since using the articulating spacer. The articulating group demonstrated a significantly improved range of flexion compared to the static group(106 vs 97 degrees- p=0.045) and had fewer patients with significant loss of extension or quadriceps lag. Eradication of infection was improved in the articulating group (92% vs 82%) but at shorter average follow-up. The need for augments and stabilized prostheses at revision surgery as a measure of bone loss was no different between the groups but was related to the number of prior surgical procedures. Twenty-six patients treated with articulating spacers were compared to a matched consecutive group of forty patients treated with static spacers. Minimum follow-up was twelve months from second stage re-implantation (average twenty-two months articulating, forty months static). Funding: No direct funding from any commercial source has been received for this study. The primary author’s fellowship position is partially funded by Smith and Nephew Richards Inc

2 stage revisions of infected knee replacements using a static spacer are complicated by poor patient mobility between stages and the need for extensive soft tissue releases at the second stage. In this study we hypothesised that the use of the resterilsed components as temporary functional spacers, maintains patient function, and reduces soft tissue releases at second stage without reducing the rate of septic failure and obviating the need for expensive purpose made spacers. Method We report our series of seven two-stage revisions of infected total knee replacements using the resterilised femoral and tibial components as a temporary articulating spacers. This was compared to a second cohort of 6 patients in which the standard “hamburger” static spacer was used. Outcomes measured include reinfection rates, interval mobility, final range of movement, and bone loss. Results The articulating spacer allowed more comfortable function between stages and obviated the need for rectus snips and tibial tubercle osteotomies for exposure at the second stage. There was less bone loss in the articulating group requiring less stems or augments. The range of movement averaged 88 degrees at 9.3 months compared to 80 degrees at 9.2 months in the “static” cohort. There were no reinfections in either group. Discussion We have shown that this is a safe and effective way of treating infected knee arthroplasties with significant advantages for the surgeon and patient over more traditional methods

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

Introduction: Deep infection continues to be the first most important early complication in knee arthroplasty. It is usual to apply standard prophylaxis to all patients, but it is not usual to use special measures in those of them who present a higher risk. Moreover, sometimes these patients are even not identified. Purpose: To analyse statistically significant risk factors for deep infection in patients with a knee arthroplasty. Patients and Methods:. Design: Case-control study. Observational and retrospective comparison of incidence or prevalence of all risk factors described in the literature. These factors have been classified according to the period of risk in: epidemiologic; pre, intra and postoperative; and distant infections. Case series: 32 consecutive patients with a deeply infected knee arthroplasty operated in the same Department of a University General Hospital. Control series: 100 randomly selected patients, operated in the same hospital and period of time, with no deep infection in their knee arthroplasty along follow-up. Pearson was used for comparison of qualitative variables and ANOVA for quantitative ones. Results: The following risk factors were significantly more frequent (p< 0.05) in the patients with an infected knee arthroplasty:. Preoperative conditions: previous surgery in the same knee (25% vs 9%), chronic therapy with glucocorticoids (19% vs 4%), immunosuppressive treatments (16% vs 3%), and non-rheumatoid inflammatory arthritis (13% vs 0%). Patients in this case-control did not present a significant difference in the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, obesity (BMI> 30), chronic liver diseases, or alcohol addiction. Intraoperative facts: a prolonged surgical time (149 min vs 108 min) and intraoperative fractures. Differences were not found in the amount of bleeding or need for transfusion. Postoperative events: secretion of the wound longer than 10 days (48% vs 0%), wound haematoma (36% vs 6%), new surgery in the knee (30% vs 0%), and deep venous thrombosis in lower limbs (10% vs 1%). Distant infections (risk for haematogenous seeding): deep cutaneous (27% vs 3%), generalized sepsis (7% vs 0%), upper and lower urinary tract (27% vs 5%), pneumonias and bronchopneumonias (27% vs 5%), and diverse abdominal focus (17% vs 1%). On the contrary, significant differences were not found in the prevalence of severe oral or dental infections. Epidemiologic characteristics: significant differences were not found in gender or in the prevalence of any aetiology. Conclusion: To identify significative risk factors for deep infection in knee arthroplasty is important:. to control and minimize these risk factors when present. when this is not possible not possible, to implement additional prophylactic measures

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 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

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

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

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

Determine if debridement, rather than staged revision is a more effective strategy in some patient subgroups with infected arthroplasty. We compiled a database comprising 154 proven infected knee replacements and 144 infected hip replacements in Christchurch over the last 10 years. This has given us the largest series in the literature. Cross referencing this database with the joint registry enabled us to compare the treatment of both acute and chronic infection in hip and knee arthroplasty with regard to both functional outcome and re-revision rate. Patients treated with debridement had no statistically significant difference in re-revision rate or functional score when compared with patients undergoing staged revision. Orthopaedic surgeons justifiably aim to eradicate infection in arthroplasty patients. A prosthesis retaining management strategy may be justifiable, especially in certain patient groups in whom multiple operations are best avoided

The aim of this study was to compare two types of knee arthrodesis. Fourteen patients underwent arthrodesis of the knee in a single institution. Seven had a customised coupled nail (the Mayday arthrodesis nail), and six had external fixation applied, one patient had both procedures undertaken. Twelve patients had infected knee arthroplasty, one had recurrent dislocation following arthroplasty and one had an infected open meniscetomy. Comparison was made with the external fixation in which only two cases achieved bony union compared with all eight (100%) using the customised nail. Time to bony union was also considerably shorter in the later group, as was the length of hospital stay. We conclude that a customised intra-medullary nail is a superior method of knee arthrodesis compared with external fixation

Background. The diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) is a considerable challenge in total joint arthroplasty. The mainstay for diagnosis of PJI is a combination of serological markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), along with joint aspirate for white cell count, differential and culture. The aim of this study was to examine the use of synovial fluid CRP in the diagnosis of PJI. Material & Methods. Synovial fluid samples were collected prospectively from patients undergoing primary and revision knee arthroplasty. Samples were assessed for CRP, cell count and differential. Three groups were analyzed; those undergoing primary knee arthroplasty, aseptic knee arthroplasties and infected arthroplasties. Demographic data, along with associated medical co-morbidities, were collected,. Statistical analysis was performed. Synovial fluid CRP was correlated with serum CRP values. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results. 50 synovial fluid samples were collected from 50 patients. Synovial fluid CRP was 0.3 +/− 0.4 in native knees, 0.2 +/− 0.5 in aseptic knee arthroplasties, 4.3+/−4.1 in patients with infected knee arthroplasties. Synovial fluid CRP was significantly higher in septic total knee arthroplasties by comparison to both aseptic total knees (p< 0.001) and native knees (p=0.006). The specificity was 100% and the sensitivity was 89% at a CRP of 1. Conclusion. While this is preliminary data, synovial fluid CRP was found to be significantly elevated in patients with infected total knee arthroplasties. This test is easily performed under routine hospital laboratory conditions without specific, expensive assays. We believe synovial CRP assay holds great promise as a new, potentially low-cost, diagnostic marker for PJI

I wish to present my experience with 521 patients with infection around hip arthroplasty and 262 with infected knee arthroplasty. The management in each case depends on circumstances such as the period since surgery, the patient’s symptoms, severity of illness and general health, and the condition of the remaining bone stock. One hundred and thirty hips and 94 knees were managed conservatively i.e. without surgery. Nine knees and 11 hips had debridement and irrigation without removing the arthroplasty. Infection persisted in 2 knees and 3 hips. Nine knees were exchanged in one stage. infection persisted in 5. Forty three hips were exchanged in one stage. Infection persisted in 18. Fifty knees were exchanged in two stages. Infection persisted in 11. One hundred and ninety eight hips were exchanged in two stages. Infection persisted in 28. Arthrodesis was performed in 77 of the more severely infected and destroyed knees. Infection persisted in 32. One hundred and eight of the more severely destroyed hips were left as excision arthroplasties. Ten remained infected but comfortable. Five patients required amputation above the knee and three through the hip. Two patients sustained serious vascular complications during surgery at the hip and one at the knee. Four patients in this series died during treatment