Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions. Methods Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model. Results For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7–8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9–9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0–19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7–19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias. Conclusion The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

Pelvic discontinuity: a challenge to overcome

Pelvic discontinuity (PD) has been a considerable challenge for the hip revision arthroplasty surgeon. However, not all PDs are the same. Some occur during primary cup insertion, resembling a fresh periprosthetic fracture that separates the superior and inferior portions of the pelvis, while others are chronic as a result of gradual acetabular bone loss due to osteolysis and/or acetabular implant loosening. In the past, ORIF, various types of cages, bone grafts and bone cement were utilized with little success. Today, the biomechanics and biology of PD as well as new diagnostic tools and especially a variety of new implants and techniques are available to hip revision surgeons. Ultraporous cups and augments, cup-cage constructs and custom triflange components have revolutionized the treatment of PD when used in various combinations with ORIF and bone grafts. For chronic PD the cup-cage construct is the most popular method of reconstruction with good medium-term results. Dislocation continues to be the leading cause of failure in all situations, followed by infection. Ultimately, surgeons today have a big enough armamentarium to select the best treatment approach. Case individualization, personal experience and improvisation are the best assets to drive treatment decisions and strategies. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:459-471. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210022

Thromboprophylaxis for Hip Revision Arthroplasty: Can We Use the Recommendations for Primary Hip Surgery? A Cohort Study

The risk of thromboembolic events after hip revision arthroplasty might be higher than in primary hip arthroplasty. However, evidence regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis in revisions is scarce. The purpose of this study is to determine whether thromboprophylaxis recommendations for primary arthroplasty produce similar results in hip revision arthroplasty. This comparative cohort study retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty and hip revision surgery between March 2004 and December 2015, who received thromboprophylaxis according to local clinical practice guidelines for primary hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and the presence of major bleeding events were assessed during hospitalization and at 3 months after discharge and compared between groups. The overall prevalence of thromboembolic events in the hip revision surgery cohort and in the primary hip cohort was 1.62% and 1.35%, respectively ( P = .801). The 38.4% of hip revision patients and 20.3% of primary hip patients presented major bleeding events. Thromboembolic disease outcomes with the use of a standardized thromboprophylaxis regimen were similar in both cohorts, regardless of the high variability of hip revision surgery and the increased risk of complications. Implementation of this regimen is recommended in patients requiring joint replacement revision surgery.