Elsevier

Journal of Infection

Volume 79, Issue 3, September 2019, Pages 199-205
Journal of Infection

Timing of implant-removal in late acute periprosthetic joint infection: A multicenter observational study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2019.07.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Patients with late acute PJI have a better outcome when treated with revision surgery instead of DAIR.

  • Patients with late acute PJI can be selected for revision surgery according to the preoperative risk of DAIR failure defined by the CRIME80 score.

  • The causative microorganism and its susceptibility to antibiotics should ideally be taken into account as well to decide for the best surgical approach.

Abstract

Objectives

We evaluated the treatment outcome in late acute (LA) periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) treated with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) versus implant removal.

Methods

In a large multicenter study, LA PJIs of the hip and knee were retrospectively evaluated. Failure was defined as: PJI related death, prosthesis removal or the need for suppressive antibiotic therapy. LA PJI was defined as acute symptoms <3 weeks in patients more than 3 months after the index surgery and with a history of normal joint function.

Results

445 patients were included, comprising 340 cases treated with DAIR and 105 cases treated with implant removal (19% one-stage revision (n = 20), 74.3% two-stage revision (n = 78) and 6.7% definitive implant removal (n = 7). Overall failure in patients treated with DAIR was 45.0% (153/340) compared to 24.8% (26/105) for implant removal (p < 0.001). Difference in failure rate remained after 1:1 propensity-score matching. A preoperative CRIME80-score ≥3 (OR 2.9), PJI caused by S. aureus (OR 1.8) and implant retention (OR 3.1) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

DAIR is a viable surgical treatment for most patients with LA PJI, but implant removal should be considered in a subset of patients, especially in those with a CRIME80-score ≥3.

Introduction

A periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after joint arthroplasty and is accompanied by increased morbidity and mortality.1, 2 Clinical outcome is highly dependent on host related factors, clinical characteristics, the causative microorganism, and the applied antimicrobial therapy and surgical techniques.4,10,11 Therefore, optimizing treatment and composing tailored strategies are crucial to improve clinical outcome. We recently demonstrated that late acute PJIs have a relatively high failure rate when treated with surgical debridement and implant retention (DAIR).21 Failure seems to be most prominent when the infection is caused by Staphylococcus aureus, with reported failures of around 50%, which is higher than described for early acute/post-surgical PJIs.13,17,19, 20, 21 Moreover, several preoperative variables, defined according to the CRIME80-score (i.e. C-reactive protein >150 mg/L, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Rheumatoid arthritis, fracture as Indication for the prosthesis, Male gender, not Exchanging the mobile components during debridement and an age above 80 years), expose patients to a higher failure risk as well.21 Despite the relatively high failure rate, a DAIR procedure is still recommended as the first line surgical approach for all acute PJIs if the implant is well fixed and if anti-biofilm antibiotics can be applied.15 However, revision of the prosthetic implant might be a better treatment modality in a subset of patients with late acute infections.17 For this reason, we compared the clinical outcome of patients with a late acute PJI treated with DAIR or immediate implant removal in a large multicenter observational cohort study and identified those patients who may benefit more from implant removal instead of DAIR. Propensity score matching was applied to correct for selection bias between both surgical techniques.

Section snippets

Study design and inclusion criteria

We performed an international multicenter retrospective observational study in which data of all consecutive patients with a late acute PJI of the hip or knee between January 2005 and December 2015 were collected. If centers were not able to provide cases during the complete study period, a minimum of at least 10 consecutive cases was required to participate in the study. Late acute PJI was defined as patients with a history of normal joint function and who developed a sudden onset of symptoms

Patient characteristics implant retention versus implant removal

A total of 445 patients from 27 centers were included in the analysis. Table 1 shows the preoperative differences between patients with late acute PJI treated with DAIR and implant retention (n = 340) versus patients in whom the implant was removed (n = 105). In the implant removal group, one-stage revision was performed in 20 cases (19.0%), two-stage revision in 78 cases (74.3%), and definitive implant removal in 7 cases (6.7%) (Girdlestone for hips [n = 5] and arthrodesis for knees [n = 2]).

Discussion

Current international guidelines still recommend a DAIR procedure for all acute PJIs when the implant is well fixed and an antibiotic regimen potent against biofilm infection can be administered.15 However, it is important to identify patients who have a high risk for DAIR failure prior to surgery in order to select the best surgical option. In line with this, using the same cohort of patients, we recently defined a preoperative risk score (CRIME80-score) to identify such high-risk patients for

Collaborators

Anne Gougeon, Harold Common, Anne Méheut, Joan Gomez-Junyent, Majd Tarabichi, Aybegum Demirturk, Taiana Ribeiro, Emerson Honda, Giancarlo Polesello, Paul Jutte, Joris Ploegmakers, Claudia Löwik, Guillem Bori, Laura Morata, Luis Lozano, Mikel Mancheño, Fernando Chaves, David Smolders, Phongsakone Inthavong, Adrian Taylor, Marc Digumber, Bernadette Genevieve Pfang, Eduard Tornero, Encarna Moreno, Ulrich Nöth, Cynthia Rivero, Pere Coll, Xavier Crusi, Isabel Mur, Juan Dapás, Pierre Tattevin, Jaime

Conflict of Interest

None.

Acknowledgments

None.

References (23)

  • I. Dzaja et al.

    Functional outcomes of acutely infected knee arthroplasty: a comparison of different surgical treatment options

    Can J Surg

    (2015)
  • Cited by (36)

    • Nanomechanical probing of bacterial adhesion to biodegradable Zn alloys

      2023, Biomaterials Advances
      Citation Excerpt :

      Bacterial infections of implants impose a heavy burden on patient health and medical systems [1]. The bacterial infection rate remains high: approximately 5% in orthopedic trauma surgeries [2], 24.8% in revision surgeries for periprosthetic joint infection [3], and 25.6% in hospital infections [4]. The prevention of implant infections has attracted much attention [5,6].

    • Endowing biodegradable Zinc implants with dual-function of antibacterial ability and osteogenic activity by micro-addition of Mg and Ag (≤ 0.1 wt.%)

      2023, Acta Biomaterialia
      Citation Excerpt :

      The current standard of care for implant infections is a combination of aggressive surgical debridement, target and systemic antibiotic regimens. However, the risk of bacterial infection for bone plates remains as high as 5-10% [1] and up to 30% in open fractures [2–4]. The colonization of bacteria and the formation of biofilms on the implant surface are the main causes of fracture site infection, which decreases antibiotic efficacy and evades immune system attack.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text