Two-Stage Reimplantation of a Prosthetic Hip Infection: Systematic Review of Long-Term Reinfection and Pathogen Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although two-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains an effective option for infection eradication, long-term outcome reporting remains scarce. Compiling outcomes data for this standard of care is necessary to characterize long-term reinfection risk and identify bacteria associated with reinfection. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review to determine the long-term risk of reinfection after two-stage reimplantation. The second purpose was to identify the proportion of reinfections caused by the same or different organism(s) relative to the index infection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of two-stage reimplantation randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case series for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections, yielding 320 unique citations for abstract review, of which 138 were reviewed in full. We collected reinfection data including the timing of reinfection after successful reimplantation and the bacteria identified at reinfection. Meeting inclusion criteria were 28 studies with 2047 patients and 2055 hips that completed both reimplantation stages with just seven studies having greater than 24 month follow-up. RESULTS: Studies with longer average follow-up reported significantly higher all-time reinfection rates (P = .042). Among studies with at least 5 years of follow-up, the risk of reinfection was 10.25% (8.21-12.47). Among studies with minimum follow-up of at least 24 months, the 24-month rate of reinfection was 4.58% (2.17-7.66), which increased to 7.34% (4.44-10.82) by final follow-up. Only 12 studies reported index and recurrent pathogen data. In those studies, 3.00% (1.19-5.38) of all hips which completed both reimplantation stages were reinfected by a new pathogen, and 1.70% (0.52-3.35) of patients became reinfected by recurrent pathogens. CONCLUSION: While the majority of two stage reimplantation literature follows patients for two years, there is significant risk of reinfection into the long term. Further studies with detailed outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed to identify factors associated with late infections.

How high is too high? Extensive mediastinal dissection in patients with hiatal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of patients receiving anti-reflux procedures present with shortened esophagus. Collis gastroplasty (CG) is the current gold standard for esophageal lengthening, but mediastinal esophageal mobilization without gastroplasty may be an alternative approach. This study assesses preoperative and intraoperative hernia characteristics and mediastinal dissection impact in patients with large hiatal hernia repair (HHR). METHODS: A single-institution, prospectively collected database was reviewed for adults who underwent laparoscopic HHR with mesh and anti-reflux surgery between 2005 and 2016, hernia ≥ 5 cm. Preoperative hernia and follow-up were assessed using upper endoscopy and barium swallow. Intraoperative hernia characteristics were collected from the operative note. Esophageal symptom scores were collected pre- and postoperatively. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v26.0. RESULTS: Among 662 patients who had anti-reflux surgery in this period, a total of 205 patients who underwent HHR with mesh met the inclusion criteria and were included in study. Mean age was 61.7 ± 13.6 years, and majority of patients were female and Caucasian. Mean BMI was 29.9 ± 6.0 kg/m2. Median hernia size was 6.5 cm [5.0-12.0 cm], and intra-thoracic stomach had a prevalence of 21.9%. Analysis of preoperative barium swallow revealed an average of elevated gastroesophageal junction above the diaphragm of 4.10 ± 1.67 cm. Radiographically, average hernia size was 6.34 ± 1.93 cm and 6.38 ± 1.92 cm in the anterior-posterior and obliquus view, respectively. Median follow-up time was 2.7 years [1-9 years]. Esophageal symptoms improved in all patients (p < 0.05). 45% of patients had radiographic recurrence, but only four presented symptomatic or were on PPI. CONCLUSIONS: CG has been the standard for ensuring adequate esophageal length prior to anti-reflux surgery. Our results support that CG is unnecessary in the majority of cases, and extensive mediastinal dissection was successfully used instead of CG with durable, long-term outcomes. Extended mediastinal dissection may mitigate CG risks in patients requiring additional intra-abdominal esophagus.