The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation = 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system. RESULTS: At the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n = 11), compared with 28% (n = 14) in group 1, 29% (n = 7) in group 3, and 26% (n = 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P = .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P = .107). Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.

What Is the Mid-term Survivorship of Infected Rotating-hinge Implants Treated with One-stage-exchange?

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing number of studies reporting on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), there is little information on one-stage exchange arthroplasty for the revision of infected rotating-hinge prostheses, which can be among the most difficult PJI presentations to treat. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: After one-stage direct exchange revision for an infected rotating-hinge TKA prosthesis, and using a multimodal approach for infection control, we asked: (1) What is the survivorship free from repeat revision for infection and survivorship free from reoperation for any cause? (2) What is the clinical outcome, based on the Oxford Knee Score, of these patients at the latest follow-up? METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2017, we treated 101 patients with infected rotating-hinge knee prostheses at our hospital. All patients who underwent a one-stage exchange using another rotating-hinge implant were potentially eligible for this retrospective study. During that period, we generally used a one-stage approach when treating PJIs. Eighty-three percent (84 of 101) of patients were treated with one-stage exchange, and the remainder were treated with two-stage exchange. Of the 84 treated with one-stage exchange, eight patients died of unrelated causes and were therefore excluded, one patient declined to participate in the study, and another eight patients were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years or had incomplete datasets, leaving 80% (67 of 84) for analysis in this study. The included study population consisted of 60% males (40 of 67) with a mean age of 64 ± 8 years and a mean (range) BMI of 30 ± 6 kg/m2 (21 to 40). The mean number of prior surgeries was 4 ± 2 (1 to 9) on the affected knee. Fifteen percent (10 of 67) of knees had a preoperative joint communicating sinus tract, and 66% (44 of 67) had experienced a prior PJI on the affected knee. The antimicrobial regimen was chosen based on the advice of our infectious disease consultant and individually adapted for the organism cultured. The mean follow-up duration was 6 ± 2 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using the endpoints of survivorship free from repeat revision for infection and survivorship free from all-cause revision. The functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (on a 12- to 60-point scale, with lower scores representing less pain and greater function), obtained by interviewing patients for this study at their most recent follow-up visit. Preoperative scores were not obtained. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an overall survivorship free from reoperation for any cause of 75% (95% CI 64% to 87%) at the mean follow-up of 6 years postoperatively. Survivorship free from any repeat operative procedure for infection was 90% (95% CI 83% to 97%) at 6 years. The mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score was 37 ± 11 points. CONCLUSION: With an overall revision rate of about 25% at 6 years and the limited functional results based on the poor Oxford Knee Scores, patients should be counseled to have modest expectations concerning postoperative pain and function level after one-stage exchange of an infected rotating-hinge arthroplasty. Nevertheless, patients may be informed about a reasonable chance of PJI eradication and might opt for this approach as a means to try to avoid high transfemoral amputation or joint arthrodesis, which in this population often is associated with the inability to ambulate at all. Regarding the relatively high number of patients with aseptic loosening, future studies might focus on implant design of revision knee systems as well. A longer course of oral antibiotics after such procedures may also be warranted to limit the chance of reinfection but requires further study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.