Periprosthetic Knee Infection - Part 2: Treatment.

Several treatment modalities are proposed for periprosthetic infections, with variable success rates. However, efficacy is related to the appropriate selection of cases for each type of treatment. Debridement with implant retention is indicated in acute infections with fixed implant, and its success depends on the type of infection, comorbidities of the host, and virulence of the etiological agent. One- or two-stage revision is required in cases in which biofilm is forming, or of implant loosening. The choice between performing the review in one or two stages depends on factors such as etiological agent identification, pathogen virulence, local and systemic host factors. Rescue procedures such as arthrodesis, amputation, resection arthroplasty or even antibiotic suppression are reserved for cases in which the infection has not been eradicated.

Periprosthetic Knee Infection - Part 1: Risk Factors, Classification and Diagnosis.

Infection is one of the most feared complications in the postoperative period of knee arthroplasties. With the progressive aging of the population and the increased incidence of degenerative joint diseases, there is an exponential increase in the number of arthroplasties performed and, consequently, in the number of postoperative infections. The diagnosis of these should follow a hierarchical protocol, with well-defined criteria, which lead to diagnostic conclusion, thus guiding the most appropriate treatment. The aim of the present update article is to present the main risk factors, classifications and, mainly, to guide diagnostic investigation in an organized manner.

Periprosthetic Knee Infection - Part 1: Risk Factors, Classification and Diagnosis / Infecção periprotética do joelho - Parte 1: Fatores de risco, classificação e diagnóstico

Abstract Infection is one of the most feared complications in the postoperative period of knee arthroplasties. With the progressive aging of the population and the increased incidence of degenerative joint diseases, there is an exponential increase in the number of arthroplasties performed and, consequently, in the number of postoperative infections. The diagnosis of these should follow a hierarchical protocol, with welldefined criteria, which lead to diagnostic conclusion, thus guiding the most appropriate treatment. The aim of the present update article is to present the main risk factors, classifications and, mainly, to guide diagnostic investigation in an organized manner.

Resumo A infecção é uma das complicações mais temidas no pós-operatório de artroplastias do joelho. Com o envelhecimento populacional progressivo e o aumento da incidência de doenças degenerativas articulares, observa-se um aumento exponencial do número de artroplastias realizadas e, consequentemente, do número de infecções pós-operatórias. O diagnóstico destas devem seguir um protocolo hierarquizado, com critérios bem definidos, que conduzam à conclusão diagnóstica, orientando, assim, o tratamento mais adequado. O objetivo do presente artigo de atualização é apresentar os principais fatores de risco, as classificações e, principalmente, guiar de forma organizada a investigação diagnóstica.

Periprosthetic Knee Infection - Part 2: Treatment / Infecção periprotética do joelho - Parte 2: Tratamento

Abstract Several treatment modalities are proposed for periprosthetic infections, with variable success rates. However, efficacy is related to the appropriate selection of cases for each type of treatment. Debridement with implant retention is indicated in acute infections with fixed implant, and its success depends on the type of infection, comorbidities of the host, and virulence of the etiological agent. One- or two-stage revision is required in cases in which biofilm is forming, or of implant loosening. The choice between performing the review in one or two stages depends on factors such as etiological agent identification, pathogen virulence, local and systemic host factors. Rescue procedures such as arthrodesis, amputation, resection arthroplasty or even antibioticsuppressionarereservedforcasesinwhichtheinfectionhasnotbeeneradicated.

Resumo Diversas modalidades de tratamento são propostas para as infecções periprotéticas, com índices de sucesso variáveis. No entanto, a eficácia está relacionada à seleção adequada dos casos para cada tipo de tratamento. O desbridamento com retenção do implante é indicado em infecções agudas com implante fixo, e seu sucesso depende do tipo de infecção, das comorbidades do hospedeiro e da virulência do agente etiológico. A revisão em um ou dois estágios se impõem nos casos em que haja formação de biofilme, ou nos quais se tenha afrouxamento do implante. A escolha entre realizar a revisão em um ou dois estágios depende de fatores como identificação do agente etiológico, virulência do patógeno, fatores locais e sistêmicos do hospedeiro. Os procedimentos de salvamento como artrodese, amputação, artroplastia de ressecção ou, ainda, supressão antibiótica são reservados para os casos em que não se conseguiu erradicação da infecção.

Pre-operative templating for knee arthroplasty shows low accuracy with standard X-rays.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of pre-operative templating in predicting the size of femoral and tibial components and the effect of coronal deformity on templating accuracy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 39 pre-operative templates prepared by three different surgeons with different levels of training. The accuracy and reliability measures were evaluated by alpha and kappa coefficients of agreement. The analysis of the effect of coronal deformity on the accuracy of the template was measured by the Spearman's correlation test. RESULTS: Templating was accurate for the femoral component in 28.21% of anterposterior (AP) radiographs and 35.90% of lateral radiographs. Kappa coefficients were respectively 0.111 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: -0.19 to 0.241) and 0.200 (95%CI: -0.010 to 0.401), indicating poor agreement. Templating accuracy for the tibial component were, respectively, 37.61% and 47.01% for AP and lateral views. Kappa coefficients were 0.186 (95%CI: -0.070 to 0.379) for the AP view and 0.315 (95%CI: -0.199 to 0.431) for the lateral view, showing poor and slight agreement respectively. Considering a margin of error of ±1 sizes, the agreement level improved for all components, particularly for tibia, where agreement levels become very good. The inter-observer agreement was fair for all components, except for the lateral view of the femoral component, whose agreement was good. The Spearman correlation test showed no correlation between accuracy of templating and coronal deformity. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative templating is an unreliable and inaccurate tool. There is no relation between coronal deformity and accuracy of templating.