To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention
(DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)
and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was
evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less
than two years. Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our
hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to
criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published
algorithm.Aims
Patients and Methods
The number of arthroplasties being undertaken
is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will
be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent
and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of
several new strategies, which are discussed in this review. Cite this article:
To investigate the outcomes of treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic
joint infection (PJI) involving total knee and hip arthroplasties. Streptococcal PJI episodes which occurred between January 2009
and December 2015 were identified from clinical databases. Presentation
and clinical outcomes for 30 streptococcal PJIs in 30 patients (12
hip and 18 knee arthroplasties) following treatment were evaluated
from the medical notes and at review. The Kaplan-Meier survival method
was used to estimate the probability of infection-free survival.
The influence of the biofilm active antibiotic rifampin was also
assessed.Aims
Patients and Methods
There are few reports in the literature of the diagnosis and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Most deal with resection
We have prospectively studied the outcome of infections associated with implants which were retained and treated using a standardised antimicrobial protocol. Over a period of four years, we studied 24 consecutive patients who had symptoms of infection for less than one year, a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen which was susceptible to recommended antimicrobial agents. The infections involved hip prostheses (14), knee prostheses (5), an internal fixation device (4), and an ankle prosthesis (1). Twenty patients had a successful outcome at a median follow-up of 3.7 years (1.8 to 4.7); four had failure of the implant after a median follow-up of 1.2 years (0.3 to 2.5). The probability of survival without failure of treatment was 96% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 88 to 100), 92% at two years (95% CI 80 to 100) and 86% at three years (95% CI 72 to 100). Patients with a short-term infection but with a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen may be successfully treated by retention of the implant and the use of a standardised regimen of antimicrobial treatment.
While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation. We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications. Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate.