Revision of infected knee arthroplasties in Denmark

Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Christoffer C Jørgensen, Jens Bagger, Henrik M Schrøder, Henrik Kehlet, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Christoffer C Jørgensen, Jens Bagger, Henrik M Schrøder, Henrik Kehlet

Abstract

Background and purpose - The surgical treatment of periprosthetic knee infection is generally either a partial revision procedure (open debridement and exchange of the tibial insert) or a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty procedure. We describe the failure rates of these procedures on a nationwide basis. Patients and methods - 105 partial revisions (100 patients) and 215 potential 2-stage revision procedures (205 patients) performed due to infection from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 were identified from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (DKR). Failure was defined as surgically related death ≤ 90 days postoperatively, re-revision due to infection, or not reaching the second stage for a planned 2-stage procedure within a median follow-up period of 3.2 (2.2-4.2) years. Results - The failure rate of the partial revisions was 43%. 71 of the partial revisions (67%) were revisions of a primary prosthesis with a re-revision rate due to infection of 34%, as compared to 55% in revisions of a revision prosthesis (p = 0.05). The failure rate of the 2-stage revisions was 30%. Median time interval between stages was 84 (9-597) days. 117 (54%) of the 2-stage revisions were revisions of a primary prosthesis with a re-revision rate due to infection of 21%, as compared to 29% in revisions of a previously revised prosthesis (p = 0.1). Overall postoperative mortality was 0.6% in high-volume centers (> 30 procedures within 2 years) as opposed to 7% in the remaining centers (p = 0.003). Interpretation - The failure rates of 43% after the partial revision procedures and 30% after the 2-stage revisions in combination with the higher mortality outside high-volume centers call for centralization and reconsideration of surgical strategies.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Selection of the study population. DNPR: the Danish National Patient Registry; DKR: the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. a Registered as 2 procedures in the DKR and both were excluded.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Results of the partial revisions.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Results of the 2-stage procedures.

References

    1. DKR (2012). The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2012. Available from .
    1. DKR (2013). The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2013. Available from .
    1. Andersen T F, Madsen M, Jorgensen J, Mellemkjoer L, Olsen J H.. The Danish National Hospital Register. A valuable source of data for modern health sciences. Dan Med Bull 1999; 46(3): 263–8.
    1. Azzam K A, Seeley M, Ghanem E, Austin M S, Purtill J J, Parvizi J.. Irrigation and debridement in the management of prosthetic joint infection: traditional indications revisited. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25(7): 1022–7.
    1. Bengtson S, Knutson K.. The infected knee arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up of 357 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1991; 62(4): 301–11.
    1. Buechel F F, Femino F P, D’Alessio J.. Primary exchange revision arthroplasty for infected total knee replacement: a long-term study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2004; 33(4): 190–8.
    1. Choi H R, Bedair H.. Mortality following revision total knee arthroplasty: a matched cohort study of septic versus aseptic revisions. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(6): 1216–8.
    1. Fehring T K, Odum S M, Berend K R, Jiranek W A, Parvizi J, Bozic K J, Della Valle C J, Gioe T J.. Failure of irrigation and debridement for early postoperative periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471(1): 250–7.
    1. Gardner J, Gioe T J, Tatman P.. Can this prosthesis be saved?: implant salvage attempts in infected primary TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(4): 970–6.
    1. Gbejuade H O, Lovering A M, Webb J C.. The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(2): 147–58.
    1. Gundtoft P H, Overgaard S, Schonheyder H C, Moller J K, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Pedersen A B.. The “true” incidence of surgically treated deep prosthetic joint infection after 32,896 primary total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(3): 326–334.
    1. Haddad F S, Sukeik M, Alazzawi S.. Is single-stage revision according to a strict protocol effective in treatment of chronic knee arthroplasty infections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473(1): 8–14.
    1. Holmberg A, Thorhallsdottir V G, Robertsson O, W-Dahl A, Stefansdottir A.. 75% success rate after open debridement, exchange of tibial insert, and antibiotics in knee prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(4): 457–62.
    1. Kapadia B H, McElroy M J, Issa K, Johnson A J, Bozic K J, Mont M A.. The economic impact of periprosthetic infections following total knee arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(5): 929–32.
    1. Kurd M F, Ghanem E, Steinbrecher J, Parvizi J.. Two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty: does resistance of the infecting organism influence the outcome? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468(8): 2060–6.
    1. Lindberg-Larsen M, Jorgensen C C, Baek H T, Solgaard S, Odgaard A, Kehlet H.. Re-admissions, re-operations and length of stay in hospital after aseptic revision knee replacement in Denmark: a two-year nationwide study. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B(12): 1649–56.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard J L, Rebolj M.. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39(7 Suppl): 30–3.
    1. Mason K, Thygesen L C, Stenager E, Bronnum-Hansen H, Koch-Henriksen N.. Evaluating the use and limitations of the Danish National Patient Register in register-based research using an example of multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2012; 125(3): 213–7.
    1. Masters J P, Smith N A, Foguet P, Reed M, Parsons H, Sprowson A P.. A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 222.
    1. Mortazavi S M, Vegari D, Ho A, Zmistowski B, Parvizi J.. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: predictors of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(11): 3049–54.
    1. Odum S M, Fehring T K, Lombardi A V, Zmistowski B M, Brown N M, Luna J T, Fehring K A, Hansen E N.. Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections: does the organism matter? J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(6 Suppl): 114–8.
    1. Osmon D R, Berbari E F, Berendt A R, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg J M, Rao N, Hanssen A, Wilson W R.. Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56(1): 1–10.
    1. Parkinson R W, Kay P R, Rawal A.. A case for one-stage revision in infected total knee arthroplasty? Knee 2011; 18(1): 1–4.
    1. Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen A F.. Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B(11): 1450–2.
    1. Singer J, Merz A, Frommelt L, Fink B.. High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470(5): 1461–71.
    1. Witsø E. The rate of prosthetic joint infection is underestimated in the arthroplasty registers. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(3): 277–8.
    1. Zimmerli W, Ochsner P E.. Management of infection associated with prosthetic joints. Infection 2003; 31(2): 99–108.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren