RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Two-stage septic revision is the prevailing method for addressing late periprosthetic infections. Using at least dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement leads to synergistic effects with a more efficient elution of individual antibiotics. Recent data on the success rates of multiantibiotic cement spacers in two-stage revisions are rare. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective follow-up single-center study involving 250 patients with late periprosthetic hip infections and 95 patients with prosthetic knee infections who underwent septic two-stage prosthesis revision surgery between 2017 and 2021. In accordance with the antibiotic susceptibility profile of the microorganisms, a specific mixture of antibiotics within the cement spacer was used, complemented by systemic antibiotic treatment. All patients underwent preoperative assessments and subsequent evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post operation and at the most recent follow-up. RESULTS: During the observation period, the survival rate after two-step septic revision was 90.7%. Although survival rates tended to be slightly lower for difficult-to-treat (DTT) microorganism, there was no difference between the pathogen groups (easy-to-treat (ETT) pathogens, methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens). Furthermore, there were no differences between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. No difference in the survival rate was observed between patients with dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement without an additional admixture (Copal® G+C and Copal® G+V) and patients with an additional admixture of antibiotics to proprietary cement. CONCLUSION: Employing multiple antibiotics within spacer cement, tailored to pathogen susceptibility, appears to provide reproducibly favorable success rates, even in instances of infections with DTT pathogens and polymicrobial infections.
RESUMEN
The rising number of arthroplasties is combined with a rising number of periprosthetic joint infections, which leads to life-concerning consequences for the patients, including extended antibiotic treatment, further surgery and increased mortality. The heterogeneity of the symptoms and inflammatory response of the patients due to, e.g., age and comorbidities and the absence of a single diagnostic test with 100% accuracy make it very challenging to choose the right parameters to confirm or deny a periprosthetic joint infection and to establish a standardized definition. In recent years, additional diagnostic possibilities have emerged primarily through the increasing availability of new diagnostic methods, such as genetic techniques. The aim of the review is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge about the various tests, including the latest developments. The combination of different tests increases the accuracy of the diagnosis. Each physician or clinical department must select the tests from the available methods that can be best implemented for them in organizational and technical terms. Serological parameters and the cultivation of the samples from aspiration or biopsy should be combined with additional synovial tests to create an accurate figure for the failure of the prosthesis, while imaging procedures are used to obtain additional information for the planned therapeutic procedure.
RESUMEN
AIM: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) can lead to secondary osteoarthritis of the other compartments. The objective of this study was to identify the frequency of PJIs in cases of UKA with progressed secondary osteoarthritis and the result of septic one-stage revision in these cases to verify the value of preoperative aspiration in cases of secondary osteoarthritis of UKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 97 patients with a unicompartmental arthroplasty who underwent revision surgery to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between January 2013 and March 2021 because of subsequent osteoarthritis. Preoperative aspiration and sample collection during the revision surgery were employed to identify potential periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The post-revision period was monitored for septic complications over an average duration of 55.7 ± 25.2 months (24-113). RESULTS: PJIs were identified in 5.2% of cases through preoperative aspiration. In all instances of PJIs, a one-stage septic revision was performed, and notably, none of these cases experienced septic complications during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative aspiration is essential in order to exclude the presence of a PJI before performing revision surgery of UKA due to secondary osteoarthritis.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Graphic type differentiation of cell count data of synovial aspirates is a new method for the diagnosis of early and late periprosthetic joint infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyse if the same 6 LMNE-types can be differentiated in the new Yumizen H500 cell counter as it was the case for the old cell counter ABX Pentra XL 80 of previous publications, to verify if the erythrocyte and thrombocyte curves of the new device give additional information and to calculate the difference of cell count in LMNE-type I and III (with abrasion) in the cell counter and in the manual counting chamber (Neubauer improved). METHODS: 450 aspirates of 152 total hip arthroplasties and 298 knee arthroplasties obtained for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection were analysed with the Yumizen H500. RESULTS: All LMNE-matrices of the 450 aspirates could assigned to one of the six LMNE-types. There were 76 LMNE-type I, 72 LMNE-type II, 14 LMNE-type III, 241 LMNE-type IV, 36 LMNE-type V and 12 LMNE-type VI. The erythrocyte and thrombocyte distribution curves were very helpful for differentiation of hematoma and infection. The cell count in the manual counting procedure was lower than in the cell counter: for the LMNE-type I (abrasion type) the median of the difference was 925/µL (median) and for the LMNE-type III (combined type of infection and abrasion) 3570/µL (median). CONCLUSION: The described graphic type differentiation is a new and helpful method for differentiation of hematoma and early PJI as well as abrasion and late PJI.
RESUMEN
AIM: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infections. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 403 aseptic revision knee arthroplasties performed between January 2013 and March 2021 (148 revisions of a unicompartmental prosthesis, 188 revisions of a bicondylar total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 41 revisions of an axis-guided prosthesis, and 26 revisions of only one component of a surface replacement prosthesis). The bone cement Copal G+C (Heraeus Medical, Wertheim, Germany) with two antibiotics-gentamycin and clindamycin-was used for the fixation of the new implant. The follow-up period was 53.4 ± 27.9 (4.0-115.0) months. RESULTS: Five patients suffered from PJI within follow-up (1.2%). The revision rate for any reason was 8.7%. Survival for any reason was significantly different between the types of revision (p = 0.026, Log-Rank-test), with lower survival rates after more complex surgical procedures. The 5-year survival rate with regard to revision for any reason was 91.3% [88.2-94.4%] and with regard to revision for PJI 98.2% [98.7-99.9%], respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of the dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement Copal G+C results in a lower rate of periprosthetic infections after aseptic knee prosthesis replacement than that reported in published prosthesis revisions using only one antibiotic in the bone cement.