Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

INTRODUCTION: Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22-51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. RESULTS: 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64-89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18-57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher's exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. CONCLUSION: The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Good to excellent long-term survival of a single-design condylar constrained knee arthroplasty for primary and revision surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term survivorship, functional outcomes of a single-design condylar constrained (CCK) TKA in primary and revision cases as well as to assess specific risk factors for failure. It was hypothesized that primary CCK TKA had a better survival than revision knees. METHODS: One hundred and forty three patients who underwent revision TKA (n = 119) or complex primary TKA (n = 24) using a single-design condylar constrained knee system (Genesis CCK, Smith & Nephew) performed at a single institution between 1999 and 2008 were retrospectively included. The median follow-up amounted to 11.8 years (IQR 10.3-14.4). Implant survivorship was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify risk factors for failure. Function was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: The implant survival was 86.4% after five, 85.5% after ten and 79.8% at 15 years. A reduced implant survivorship was found in males (HR 5.16, p = 0.001), smokers (HR 6.53, p = 0.004) and in obese patients (HR 2.26, p = 0.095). Patients who underwent primary TKA had a higher revision-free implant survivorship compared to revision TKA at 15 years (100% vs. 76%, p = 0.036). The main cause for re-revision was infection in 10% of all revision TKA performed with the CCK design included, while no case was revised for instability. The median OKS was 39 (IQR 35-44) in 102 patients available for long-term functional outcome. CONCLUSION: CCK implants are associated with excellent long-term survival when used in primary TKA; however, survival was worse when used during revision TKA. Males, smokers, obese patients and are at higher risk for revision. While instability and aseptic loosening were rare, infection remains a major concern. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective observational study.

Comparison of efficacy of supraspinatus tendon tears diagnostic tests: a prospective study on the "full-can," the "empty-can," and the "Whipple" tests.

PURPOSE: This study compares the clinical results of the Whipple, empty-can, and full-can tests to detect supraspinatus tendon tears. We determined the sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of each test with respect to the intraoperative supraspinatus tendon lesion confirmation. METHODS: We examined 61 patients (26 women, 35 men) presenting for arthroscopic surgery with functional disability or persisting shoulder pain. All the patients underwent Whipple, empty-can, and full-can testing. We correlated the clinical results of the tests with the confirmation of a supraspinatus tendon lesion by direct arthroscopic visualization. RESULTS: We examined 34 right and 27 left shoulders. For full and partial supraspinatus tendon tears, the Whipple test showed a sensitivity of 88.6% and a specificity of 29.4%, whereas the empty-can test and the full-can test had sensitivities of 88.6% and 75.0%, and specificities of 58.8% and 47.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the empty-can test and the full-can test, the Whipple test was less specific, while its sensitivity was equal to that of the empty-can test and higher than that for the full-can test. Because of its low specificity, the Whipple test has a high risk of false-positive results in comparison with the other tests.