Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Rate and Reason for the Attrition After the First Stage

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2749-2756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiaojie Wang ◽  
Karan Goswami ◽  
Feng-Chih Kuo ◽  
Chi Xu ◽  
Timothy L. Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty Is a Favorable Treatment Option Upon Diagnosis of a Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 3555-3560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng-Chih Kuo ◽  
Karan Goswami ◽  
Noam Shohat ◽  
Kier Blevins ◽  
Alexander J. Rondon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Option ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty

The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: safety and efficacy of two stage versus one stage exchange arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Palmer ◽  
Tejbir S. Pannu ◽  
Jesus M. Villa ◽  
Jorge Manrique ◽  
Aldo M. Riesgo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty

scholarly journals Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. C. Steinicke ◽  
J. Schwarze ◽  
G. Gosheger ◽  
B. Moellenbeck ◽  
T. Ackmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty ◽  
Parametric Testing

Abstract Introduction Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. Materials and methods We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22–51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. Results 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64–89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18–57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher’s exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. Conclusion The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

scholarly journals Trend of serum C-reactive protein is associated with treatment outcome of hip Periprosthetic joint infection undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty: a case control study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhong-Yan Li ◽  
Yu-Chih Lin ◽  
Chih-Hsiang Chang ◽  
Szu-Yuan Chen ◽  
Tung-Wu Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Exchange Arthroplasty

Abstract Background Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) trends are critical for monitoring patients’ treatment response following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. However, CRP trends are poorly described in the literature. The primary aim of this study was to identify the relationships between PJI treatment outcomes and our proposed CRP trend definitions, parameters, and microbiological data. The secondary aim was to investigate CRP trends after the occurrence of spacer-related complications. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of 74 patients treated with a two-stage exchange protocol for PJI in a tertiary referral joint center between 2014 and 2016. Patients with factors that may affect CRP levels (inflammatory arthritis, concomitant infections, liver and kidney diseases, and intensive care admissions) were excluded. CRP trends were categorized into five types and PJI treatment outcome was defined as “success” or “failure” according to the Delphi criteria. Results Treatment was successful in 67 patients and failed in 7 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that type 5 CRP, defined as serum CRP fluctuation without normalization after first stage surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 17.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3–129.7; p = 0.005), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; OR: 14.5; 95% CI: 1.6–131.7; p = 0.018) were associated with treatment failure. Spacer-related complications occurred in 18 patients. Of these, 12 had elevated CRP levels at later follow-up, while six had no elevation in CRP levels. Conclusions We found that MRSA infection and type 5 CRP were associated with PJI treatment failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document