Optimizing Interhospital Transfers in Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery: Challenges, Insights, and Proposals for Standardized Care in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Germany's high density of under-equipped hospitals and anticipated surge in orthopedic and trauma surgery-related diseases by 2030, combined with personnel shortages, are expected to increase patient transfers between hospitals, an issue that urgently needs standardized protocols. Despite some existing cooperative agreements, such as between joint-replacement centers or within the Trauma Network DGU®, these measures do not adequately address the full range of patient-transfer cases, including those due to a lack of specialization or staff shortages, resulting in delayed treatment and potential health risks. This study aims to dissect the intricacies of interhospital transfers in orthopedics and trauma surgery across Germany, focusing on understanding the underlying reasons for transfers, comparing the operational structures of small and large hospitals, and laying the groundwork for future standardized protocols to enhance patient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the form of an online survey via SoSci Survey, which was directed at orthopedic surgeons and trauma surgeons working in hospitals in Germany. The 22-question survey gathered information on participants' clinic roles, departmental details, transfer processes, frequent diagnoses, perceptions of transfer quality, and improvement areas. The survey was sent to orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany by the specialist society. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to ensure a comprehensive insight into interhospital transfer practices. RESULTS: The study involved 152 participants from various hospital ranks and located in different hospital sizes and types across rural and urban areas. A significant difference was observed between the care structures of basic/regular care and central/maximum care hospitals, especially regarding the available facilities and specialties. These findings suggest improvements such as better patient documentation, increased digital communication, optimized patient distribution, and standardization of transfer requests, among others. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the urgent need for improved protocols and resource allocation to eliminate inequalities in transfers between hospitals in orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany.

Temporary arthrodesis through static spacer implantation in two-stage treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the knee requires the removal of the implant and thorough debridement, with reimplantation in a second stage surgery. Intramedullary spacers can be helpful during the interval between explantation and reimplantation and provide a temporary arthrodesis which fixes the knee in extension preserving leg length and administers local antibiotic therapy. INDICATIONS: Periprosthetic joint infection of the knee with large bony defects and severe infection of the native joint with advanced destruction/infiltration of the cartilage and bone and/or ligament insufficiency. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Suspected antibiotic resistance of the microbiological pathogen to local antibiotic drugs, incompliant patient, and known allergy to bone cement or antibiotic. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: After implant removal, suitable metal rods are coated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement and inserted into the cleaned intramedullary canals of femur and tibia. Rods are joined at the joint line with a connector and joint space is filled with more bone cement to achieve temporary and very stable arthrodesis. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Partial weight-bearing and no flexion/extension while spacer is in place; second stage reimplantation as soon as infection is controlled. RESULTS: Complications related to the spacer were rare (5.3%). Reimplantation of an implant was possible in 95 of 113 patients (84%), of those, 23 (20%) received an arthrodesis. Of the 95 patients that were reimplanted, 14 showed signs of recurrent infection. Mean time to last follow-up was 15.6 months post reimplantation. Mean knee pain was 2.9/10; overall function was good; 6 patients had an extension lag; mean total range of motion was 88°.

Surgical technique and preliminary results of a moulded, mobile spacer for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: Mobile knee spacers can be utilized in the first stage of a two-stage exchange in periprosthetic joint infection or septic arthritis of the knee to prevent soft tissue contraction, enable local antibiotic elution, and improve patient mobility. Commercially made moulds enable the surgeon to prepare a reproducible spacer design and match the preparation of the arthroplasty, which will be carried out in a second step. INDICATIONS: Periprosthetic joint infection of the knee and severe cases of septic arthritis of the knee with advanced destruction/infiltration of the cartilage. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Antibiotic resistance of the microbiological pathogen to available antibiotic agents, incompliant patient, large osseous defect preventing proper fixation, known allergy to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or antibiotic, severe soft tissue damage with high ligament instability, especially deterioration of extensor mechanism and insufficient patella/quadricep tendon. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: After thorough debridement and removal of all foreign material, cutting blocks are used to shape femur and tibia to the implant design required. Using a silicone mould, PMMA with suitable antibiotics is moulded into the shape of the future implant. After polymerization, the implants are fixed onto the bone with additional PMMA without pressurize for the sake of easy removal. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Partial weight bearing with no restriction of flexion/extension while spacer is in place; second stage reimplantation as soon as infection is controlled. RESULTS: In all, 22 cases were treated, mostly with a PMMA spacer containing gentamicin and vancomycin. Pathogens were detected in 13 of 22 cases (59%). We observed two complications (9%). Twenty of 22 patients (86%) were reimplanted with a new arthroplasty; 16 of the 20 patients remained revision-free and infection-free at the last follow-up (average time to follow-up 13 months, range 1-46 months). Average range of motion in flexion and extension at follow-up was 98°.

Commercially manufactured spacers for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection remains a common and serious complication after hip arthroplasty. To improve function and patient comfort after joint removal in two-stage revision, commercially manufactured spacers for the hip joint allow retention of the anatomical joint geometry thereby limiting soft tissue contraction and allow mobilization. INDICATIONS: Periprosthetic joint infection of the hip, septic arthritis with severe destruction of the hip cartilage and/or bone requiring arthroplasty. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Allergies to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or antibiotics, severe hip dysplasia with insufficient cranial support, incompliant patient, large osseous defect of the acetabulum, insufficient metaphyseal/diaphyseal support of the femoral bone, resistance of the microbiological pathogen to spacer-inert antibiotic medication, inability to perform primary wound closure requiring temporary open-wound therapy. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Preoperative templating on radiograph; removal of joint prosthesis and thorough debridement with removal of all foreign material; trial spacer selection and insertion and trial reduction of the joint, fixing the spacer with PMMA to the proximal femur, final reduction, radiograph and stability test. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from patients treated between 2016 and 2021. In all, 20 patients were treated with preformed spacers and 16 with custom-made spacers. Pathogens were detected in 23 of the 36 cases (64%). Polymicrobial infections were present in 8 of 36 cases (22%). In patients who received preformed spacers, there were 6 cases of spacer-related complications (30%). Of the 36 patients (83%), 30 were reimplanted with a new implant; 3 patients died due to septic or other complications before reimplantation (8%). Average follow-up was 20.2 months after reimplantation. There were no major differences between the two groups of spacers. Patient comfort was not measured.