Int J Med Sci 2021; 18(4):1000-1006. doi:10.7150/ijms.47655 This issue

Research Paper

Successful Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Timing on Eradication of Infection

Ines Vielgut, MD, PhD1✉, Gerold Schwantzer, Mag2, Andreas Leithner, Prof, MD1, Patrick Sadoghi, Prof, MD, PhD1, Uldis Berzins, MD1, Mathias Glehr, Prof, MD1

1. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
Citation:
Vielgut I, Schwantzer G, Leithner A, Sadoghi P, Berzins U, Glehr M. Successful Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Timing on Eradication of Infection. Int J Med Sci 2021; 18(4):1000-1006. doi:10.7150/ijms.47655. Available from https://www.medsci.org/v18p1000.htm

File import instruction

Abstract

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty. In the setting of chronic infections, the two-staged approach has traditionally been the preferred treatment method. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal period of rest between the first and second stage. Furthermore, we analyzed potentially outcome-relevant parameters, such as general and local conditions and the presence of difficult-to-treat or unidentified microorganisms, with regard to their impact on successful treatment of PJI.

Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for all patients treated for PJI at our institution. Seventy-seven patients who had undergone two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the knee were included into the study. Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers were used for all patients.

Results: After a median follow-up time of 24.5 months, infection had reoccurred in 14 (18.7%) patients. A prolonged spacer-retention period of more than 83 days was related to a significantly higher proportion of reinfections. Furthermore, significant compromising local conditions of the prosthetic tissue and surrounding skin, as well as repeated spacer-exchanges between first- and second-stage surgery, negatively influenced the outcome. Neither the patients' age nor gender exerted a significant influence on the outcome regarding reinfection rates for patients' age or gender.

Conclusions: We observed the best outcome regarding infection control in patients who had undergone second-stage surgery within 12 weeks after first-stage surgery. Nearly 90% of these patients stayed free from infection until the final follow-up. An increased number of performed spacer-exchanges and a bad local extremity grade also had a negative impact on the outcome.

Keywords: Total knee arthroplasty, Prosthetic knee joint infection, Antibiotic-augmented joint spacer, Two-stage revision procedure