Different therapeutic options for prosthetic joint infections exist, but surgery remains the key. With a two-stage exchange procedure, a success rate above 90% can be expected. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal duration between explantation and the reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes between short-interval and long-interval two-stage exchanges. Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis 145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19–103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10–402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5–152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table. The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome.
The costs related to the treatment of infected total joint arthroplasties represent an ever groving burden to the society. Different patient-adapted therapeutic options like débridement and retention, 1- or 2-step exchange can be used. If a 2-step exchange is used we have to consider short (2–4 weeks) or long (>4–6 weeks) interval treatment. The Swiss DRG (Diagnose related Groups) determines the reimboursement the hopsital receives for the treatment of an infected total arthroplasty. The review assesses the cost-effectiveness of hospitalisation practices linked to surgical treatment in the two-stage exchange of a prosthetic-joint infection. The aim of this retrospectiv study is to compare the economical impact between a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (6 weeks and above) interval during a two-satge procedure to determine the financial impact. Retrospectiv study of the patients with a two-stage procedure for a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at CHUV hospital Lausanne (Switzerland) between 2012 and 2013. The review analyses the correlation between the interval length and the length of the hospital stay as well as with the costs and revenues per hospital stay. In average there is a loss of 40′000 Euro per hospitalisation for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Revenues never cover all the costs, even with a short interval procedure. This economical loss increases with the length of the hospital stay if a long-term intervall is choosen. The review explores potential for improvement in reimbourement practices and hospitalisation practices in the current Swiss healthcare setting. There should be alternative setups to decrease the burden of medical costs by a) increase the reimboursment for the treatment of infected total joints or by b) splitting the hospital stay with partners (rapid transfer after first operation from center hospital to level 2 hospital and retransfer for second operation to center) in order to increase revenues.
