A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded. RESULTS: 63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority

Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach: A systematic review of the literature

Background and purpose Two-stage revision remains the gold standard in the treatment of infected knee arthroplasty. Lately, good long-term results of direct exchange arthroplasty have been reported. The purpose of this literature review is to compare the clinical outcome achieved with one-stage revision and two-stage revision with different types of spacers

Diagnosis and Management of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty§

Infection following total knee arthroplasty can be difficult to diagnose and treat. Diagnosis is multifactorial and relies on the clinical picture, radiographs, bone scans, serologic tests, synovial fluid examination, intra-operative culture and histology. Newer techniques including ultrasonication and molecular diagnostic studies are playing an expanded role. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with antibiotic cement and 4-6 weeks of intravenous antibiotic treatment remains the most successful intervention for infection eradication. There is no consensus on the optimum type of interval antibiotic cement spacer. There is a limited role for irrigation and debridement, direct one-stage exchange, chronic antibiotic suppression and salvage procedures like arthrodesis and amputation. We examine the literature on each of the diagnostic modalities and treatment options in brief and explain their current significance

Osteoid osteoma of the hand and wrist

Eighteen cases of osteoid osteoma of the hand and wrist were treated between 1985 and 1999. The diagnosis was confirmed pre-operatively with X-rays, bone scintigraphy, CT, and MRI, and all the diagnoses were later confirmed by histological examination. The authors highlight the difficulties in the diagnosis of the osteoid osteoma of the hand and wrist. An accurate clinical history and a high index of suspicion are required. Three phase bones scans are highly sensitive for osteoid osteoma and should be used in conjunction with CT examination to facilitate diagnosis and pre-operative planning. All the patients were treated surgically, by removal of the tumour, with complete resolution of all symptoms

A novel technique to preserve range of motion in two-stage revision of infected total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE: Two-stage revision represents the gold standard in the treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. Different techniques have been proposed, mostly not preserving range of motion. An articulated antibiotic-loaded cement spacer made in association with two unicompartmental implants has been used as an alternative to a static spacer in an effort to retain as much movement as possible between the stages in young, high-demand patients with preserved ROM. METHODS: We evaluated nine consecutive patients with a mean age of 66.5 years. The second stage was performed after lab tests returned to normal and culture proved negative. Mean follow-up was 4.6 years. RESULTS: Mean ROM from a preoperative value of 105.6° was 103.5° after the first stage, and improved to 110.0° after the definitive implant. Mean Knee Society score was 27.6 preoperatively improving to 86.4 points postoperatively. WOMAC score showed that six patients were very satisfied with the overall result of their reimplanted knee, three subjects were somewhat satisfied. No recurrence of infection, no significant radiolucent lines or osteolysis were recorded at clinical and radiological follow-up and the patients were satisfied with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that this technique may ensure the advantages of a static spacer, but allow a greater ROM and better functional recovery. It may be considered as a viable option in selected cases even though the higher costs of two unicompartmental implants should be considered in the light of other aspects, such as prolonged hospital stay and rehabilitation in revision of infected total knee arthroplasty