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.

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).

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

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.

There has been a substantial increase in the number of hip and knee prostheses implanted in recent years, with a consequent increase in the number of revisions required. Total femur replacement (TFR) following destruction of the entire femur, usually after several previous revision operations, is a rare procedure but is the only way of avoiding amputation. Intramedullary femur replacement (IFR) with preservation of the femoral diaphysis is a modification of TFR. Between 1999 and 2010, 27 patients with non-oncological conditions underwent surgery in our department with either IFR (n = 15) or TFR (n = 12) and were included in this study retrospectively. The aim of the study was to assess the indications, complications and outcomes of IFR and TFR in revision cases. The mean follow-up period was 31.3 months (6 to 90). Complications developed in 37% of cases, 33% in the IFR group and 4% in the TFR group. Despite a trend towards a slightly better functional outcome compared with TFR, the indication for intramedullary femur replacement should be established on a very strict basis in view of the procedure’s much higher complication rate.

We describe a patient who developed a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to piperacillin/tazobactam in the cement beads and a spacer inserted at revision of total replacement of the left knee. We believe that this is the first report of such a problem. Our experience suggests that a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction should be considered when a mixture of antibiotics such as piperacillin/tazobactam has been used in the bone cement, beads or spacer and the patient develops delayed symptoms of pain or painful paraesthesiae, fever, rash and abnormal laboratory findings in the absence of infection. The diagnosis was made when identical symptoms were induced by a provocation challenge test.

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.

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