Aims

To investigate the outcomes of treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) involving total knee and hip arthroplasties.

Bactericidal levels of antibiotics are difficult to achieve in infected total joint arthroplasty when intravenous antibiotics or antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are used, but intra-articular (IA) delivery of antibiotics has been effective in several studies. This paper describes a protocol for IA delivery of antibiotics in infected knee arthroplasty, and summarises the results of a pharmacokinetic study and two clinical follow-up studies of especially difficult groups: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and failed two-stage revision. In the pharmacokinetic study, the mean synovial vancomycin peak level was 9242 (3956 to 32 150; sd 7608 μg/mL) among the 11 patients studied. Serum trough level ranged from 4.2 to 25.2 μg/mL (mean, 12.3 μg/mL; average of 9.6% of the joint trough value), which exceeded minimal inhibitory concentration. The success rate exceeded 95% in the two clinical groups. IA delivery of antibiotics is shown to be safe and effective, and is now the first option for treatment of infected total joint arthroplasty in our institution.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):31–6.

Patients with infected arthroplasties are normally treated with a two-stage exchange procedure using polymethylmethacrylate bone cement spacers impregnated with antibiotics. However, spacers may act as a foreign body to which micro-organisms may adhere and grow. In this study it was hypothesised that subclinical infection may be diagnosed with sonication of the surface biofilm of the spacer. The aims were to assess the presence of subclinical infection through sonication of the spacer at the time of a second-stage procedure, and to determine the relationship between subclinical infection and the clinical outcome. Of 55 patients studied, 11 (20%) were diagnosed with subclinical infection. At a mean follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range 6 to 18), clinical failure was found in 18 (32.7%) patients. Of the patients previously diagnosed with subclinical infection, 63% (7 of 11) had failed compared with 25% (11 of 44) of those without subclinical infection (odds ratio 5.25, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 21.4, p = 0.021). Sonication of the biofilm of the surface of the spacer is useful in order to exclude subclinical infection and therefore contributes to improving the outcome after two-stage procedures.

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1162–9.

We have analysed the management and clinical outcome of a series of consecutive patients who had a total hip replacement and developed post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The incidence of this infection was 1% over a period of five years. We studied SSI in 15 patients (16 infections) with a mean age of 72.7 years (53 to 81). In all, 12 of the infections occurred early and half of the infections involved the prosthesis, resulting in an increase of 11-fold in the cumulative hospital stay.

Methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus was successfully eradicated in all the patients after a mean follow-up of 53.6 months (25 to 88). Superficial incisional infections resolved after antibiotic therapy alone while deep infections required multiple operative debridements. Attempted retention of the implant in early organ space infections was successful in only one of five patients. Only three patients with implant-level infections obtained a pain-free, functional prosthesis while a further three required excision arthroplasty. We have formulated a protocol of treatment which may serve as a guide in the management of these infections.

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5.

Periprosthetic infection following total hip replacement can be a catastrophic complication for the patient. The treatments available include single-stage exchange, and two-stage exchange. We present a series of 50 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of infected total hip replacement who were assessed according to a standardised protocol. Of these, 11 underwent single-stage revision arthroplasty with no recurrence of infection at a mean of 6.8 years follow-up (5.5 to 8.8). The remaining 39 underwent two-stage revision, with two recurrences of infection successfully treated by a second two-stage procedure. At five years, significant differences were found in the mean Harris Hip Scores (single-stage 87.8; two-stage 75.5; p = 0.0003) and in a visual analogue score for satisfaction (8.6; 6.9; p = 0.001) between the single- and two-stage groups. Single-stage exchange is successful in eradicating periprosthetic infection and results in excellent functional and satisfaction scores.

Identification of patients suitable for the single-stage procedure allows individualisation of care and provides as many as possible with the correct strategy in successfully tackling their periprosthetic infection

The common recommended treatment for infected total hip replacement is two-staged exchange including removal of all components. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stems can result in structural bone damage. We recently reported on an alternative treatment of partial two-stage exchange used in selected cases, in which a well-fixed femoral stem was left and only the acetabular component removed, the joint space was debrided thoroughly, an antibiotic-laden polymethylmethacrylate spacer was moulded using a bulb-type syringe and placed in the acetabulum, intravenous antibiotics were administered during the interval, and delayed re-implantation was performed. In 19 patients treated with this technique from January 2000 to January 2011, 89% were free of infection at a mean follow-up of four years (2 to 11). Since then, disposable silicone moulds have become available to fabricate spacers in separate femoral and head units. The head spacer mould, which incorporates various neck taper adapter options, greatly facilitates the technique of partial two-stage exchange. We report our early experience using disposable silicone head spacer moulds for partial two-stage exchange in seven patients with infected primary hip replacements.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):66–9

We have carried out in 24 patients, a two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for infection with massive bone loss. We used a custom-made, antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis as an interim spacer. Fifteen patients had acetabular deficiencies, eight had segmental femoral bone loss and one had a combined defect.

There was no recurrence of infection at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 7). A total of 21 patients remained mobile in the interim period. The mean Merle D’Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 7.3 points before operation to 13.2 between stages and to 15.8 at the final follow-up. The allograft appeared to have incorporated into the host bone in all patients. Complications included two fractures and one dislocation of the cement prosthesis.

The use of a temporary spacer maintains the function of the joint between stages even when there is extensive loss of bone. Allograft used in revision surgery after septic conditions restores bone stock without the risk of recurrent infection.

There are few reports in the literature of the diagnosis and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Most deal with resection arthroplasty and two-stage exchange surgery. We present our results of one-stage exchange operation as treatment for the infected shoulder arthroplasty.

Our group comprised 16 patients (ten men, six women) with 16 infected arthroplasties. By the time of follow-up, two patients had died (mean 5.8 years), two could not be located and three had already undergone revision surgery. Nine patients were thus available for clinical examination and assessment.

The infections were largely caused by staphylococci, Propionibacterium species and streptococci. Two were early infections (within three months of surgery) and 14 were late infections. The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (13 months to 13.25 years) when the mean Constant-Murley score was 33.6 points and the mean University College of Los Angeles score 18.3 points.

Further revision was performed in three patients. One sustained a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, another developed an acromial pseudarthrosis after transacromial surgery and the third suffered recurrent dislocations. No patient had a recurrence of infection.

A one-stage exchange procedure using antibiotic-loaded bone cement eradicated infection in all our patients and we suggest that such a procedure is at least as successful as either a resection arthroplasty or a two-stage exchange in the management of the infected shoulder arthroplasty.

Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time. In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected, and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to 14 days.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:77–83.

We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients (22 shoulders) who presented with deep infection after surgery to the shoulder, 17 having previously undergone hemiarthroplasty and five open repair of the rotator cuff. Nine shoulders had undergone previous surgical attempts to eradicate their infection. The diagnosis of infection was based on a combination of clinical suspicion (16 shoulders), positive frozen sections (> 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field) at the time of revision (15 shoulders), positive intra-operative cultures (18 shoulders) or the pre-operative radiological appearances. The patients were treated by an extensive debridement, intravenous antibiotics, and conversion to a reverse shoulder prosthesis in either a single- (10 shoulders) or a two-stage (12 shoulders) procedure.

At a mean follow-up of 43 months (25 to 66) there was no evidence of recurrent infection. All outcome measures showed statistically significant improvements. Mean abduction improved from 36.1° (sd 27.8) pre-operatively to 75.7° (sd 36.0) (p < 0.0001), the mean forward flexion from 43.1° (sd 33.5) to 79.5° (sd 43.2) (p = 0.0003), and mean external rotation from 10.2° (sd 18.7) to 25.4° (sd 23.5) (p = 0.0037). There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the single-stage and the two-stage group.

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.

There have been few reports in the literature of total elbow arthroplasty extending beyond 10 to 15 years. We reviewed 40 patients (41 elbows) with a mean age of 56 years (19 to 83) who had undergone a Coonrad/Coonrad-Morrey elbow arthroplasty by one surgeon for various diagnoses between 1974 and 1994. Surgical selection excluded patients with previous elbow infection or who refused to accept a sedentary level of elbow activity postoperatively. Objective data were collected from charts, radiographs, clinical photographs and supplemented by the referring orthopaedic surgeons’ records and radiographs if health or distance prevented a patient from returning for final review. Subjective outcome was defined by patient satisfaction.

Of the 41 elbows, 21 were functional between 10 and 14 years after operation, ten between 15 and 19 years and ten between 20 and 31 years. There were 14 complications and 13 revisions, but no cases of acute infection, or permanent removal of any implant.