There have been only a few small studies of patients with an infected shoulder replacement treated with a single-stage exchange procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients (19 men and 16 women) with a peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder who were treated in this way. A total of 26 were available for clinical examination; three had died, two were lost to follow-up and four patients had undergone revision surgery. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (1.1 to 13.25), with an infection-free survival of 94%.

The organisms most commonly isolated intra-operatively were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes; two patients developed a recurrent infection. Three different types of prosthesis were used: a hemiarthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and reverse prosthesis. The mean Constant-Murley score at final follow-up was 43.3 (14 to 90) for patients with a hemiarthroplasty, 56 (40 to 88) for those with a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and 61 (7 to 90) for those with a reverse prosthesis. The mean hospital stay was 10.6 days (5 to 29).

Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:391–5.

We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.

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 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.

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 investigated the clinical response to arthroscopic synovectomy in patients with undifferentiated chronic monoarthritis (UCMA) of the wrist. Arthroscopic synovectomy was performed on 20 wrists in 20 patients with UCMA of the wrist who had not responded to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The mean duration of symptoms at the time of surgery was 4.3 months (3 to 7) and the mean follow-up was 51.8 months (24 to 94). Inflamed synovium was completely removed from the radiocarpal, midcarpal and distal radioulnar joints using more portals than normal. After surgery, nine patients had early remission of synovitis and 11 with uncontrolled synovitis received antirheumatic medication. Overall, there was significant improvement in terms of pain relief, range of movement and Mayo score. Radiological deterioration was seen in five patients who were diagnosed as having rheumatoid arthritis during the follow-up period. Lymphoid follicles and severe lymphocyte infiltration were seen more often in synovial biopsies from patients with uncontrolled synovitis.

These results suggest that arthroscopic synovectomy provides pain relief and functional improvement, and allows rapid resolution of synovitis in about half of patients with UCMA of the wrist.