The Clinical Outcome of Different Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Infection

Published:October 11, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.002

      Abstract

      Background

      Despite the growing number of studies reporting on the best surgical treatment in the management of periprosthetic joint infection, there are no robust data regarding the type of infected prosthesis before any kind of exchange arthroplasty. To overcome these shortcomings, we asked the following questions: (1) What is the survivorship of nonhinged and hinged knee implants after one-stage exchange arthroplasty and (2) what is the functional outcome after one-stage exchange procedure focusing on knee prostheses and the type of prior infected knee implant. In a secondary radiographic analysis, we also investigated if (3) the type of femoral bone morphology measured by the inner femoral diameter influences the rate of aseptic failures also in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.

      Methods

      Between January 2011 and December 2017, we performed a retrospective designed study including 211 patients with infected knee prostheses. After all, seventy-six percent (161 of 211 patients) were available for final data analysis. These patients were divided into four groups as per the performed implant revision: (1) bicondylar total knee arthroplasty to rotating hinge implant, (2) rotating hinge to rotating hinge implant, (3) rotating hinge to full hinge implant, and (4) full hinge to full hinge implant. The mean follow-up (FU) was six years (range 3 to 9; standard deviation = 1.9), whereas a minimum FU of three years was required for inclusion. Survivorship and group analysis were performed, and the functional outcome was assessed using postoperative Oxford Knee Scores at the latest FU (60-point scale with lower scores representing less pain and greater function). Furthermore, in all cases, femoral bone morphology was determined as per the Citak classification system.

      Results

      At the final FU, the overall surgical revision rate was 23% (37/161 patients) with nine percent (15/161 patients) suffering a periprosthetic joint infection relapse. Group 1 consisted of 51, group 2 consisted of 67, group 3 consisted of 24, and group 4 consisted of 19 patients. The lowest overall revision rate was found in group 2 (16%, n = 11), compared with 28% (n = 14) in group 1, 29% (n = 7) in group 3, and 26% (n = 5) in group 4; however, no significant differences were found (P = .902). The functional outcome (Oxford Knee Score) was clinically constant in all groups, with 32 points in group 1, 37 points in group 2, 33 points in group 3, and 35 points in group 4 (P = .107).
      Concerning the number of patients with aseptic loosening as per bone morphology, 74% (14/19) of all aseptic loosening cases appeared in femoral bone type C morphologies according to Citak (75% in group 1, 56% in group 2, 100% in group 3, and 100% in group 4).

      Conclusions

      The results obtained suggest a generally high overall revision rate (25%) with a good infection control rate (91%). Although we were unable to work out a specific group of patients with a statistically significant differing outcome, it is interesting to see that hinged implants can reach more or less the same functional outcome and revision rates as nonhinged implants, when it comes to revision surgeries. In this study, a relatively high number of aseptic failures contributed to a high overall revision rate. In this context, the bone morphology, measured as per the Citak classification system, could be confirmed as a risk factor for aseptic failures also in septic patients. Therefore, further research might focus on revision knee implant design.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Rimke C.
        • Enz A.
        • Bail H.J.
        • Heppt P.
        • Kladny B.
        • Lewinski G von
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21: 694
        • Grammatopoulos G.
        • Kendrick B.
        • McNally M.
        • Athanasou N.A.
        • Atkins B.
        • McLardy-Smith P.
        • et al.
        Outcome following debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hip periprosthetic joint infection-an 18-year experience.
        J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32: 2248-2255
        • Ohlmeier M.
        • Alrustom F.
        • Citak M.
        • Salber J.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Frings J.
        What is the Mid-term survivorship of infected rotating-hinge implants treated with one-stage-exchange?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Rasouli M.R.
        • Tripathi M.S.
        • Kenyon R.
        • Wetters N.
        • Della Valle C.J.
        • Parvizi J.
        Low rate of infection control in enterococcal periprosthetic joint infections.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470: 2708-2716
        • Tsang S.-T.J.
        • Ting J.
        • Simpson A.H.R.W.
        • Gaston P.
        Outcomes following debridement, antibiotics and implant retention in the management of periprosthetic infections of the hip: a review of cohort studies.
        Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 1458-1466
        • Zahar A.
        • Klaber I.
        • Gerken A.-M.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Gebauer M.
        • Lausmann C.
        • et al.
        Ten-Year results following one-stage septic hip exchange in the management of periprosthetic joint infection.
        J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 1221-1226
        • Kildow B.J.
        • Della-Valle C.J.
        • Springer B.D.
        Single vs 2-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection.
        J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: S24-S30
        • van den Kieboom J.
        • Tirumala V.
        • Box H.
        • Oganesyan R.
        • Klemt C.
        • Kwon Y.-M.
        One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty.
        Bone Joint J. 2021; : 1-7
        • Akgün D.
        • Trampuz A.
        • Perka C.
        • Renz N.
        High failure rates in treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection: results from a seven-year retrospective cohort study.
        Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 653-659
        • Ohlmeier M.
        • Filitarin S.
        • Delgado G.
        • Frings J.
        • Abdelaziz H.
        • Salber J.
        • et al.
        Improved treatment strategies can result in better outcomes following one-stage exchange surgery for MRSA periprosthetic joint infection.
        J Med Microbiol. 2020; 69: 1100-1104
        • Ohlmeier M.
        • Jachczik I.
        • Citak M.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Hawi N.
        • Haasper C.
        • et al.
        High re-revision rate following one-stage exchange for streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.
        Hip Int. 2021; (1120700021991467)
        • Renz N.
        • Trebse R.
        • Akgün D.
        • Perka C.
        • Trampuz A.
        Enterococcal periprosthetic joint infection: clinical and microbiological findings from an 8-year retrospective cohort study.
        BMC Infect Dis. 2019; 19: 1083
        • Rossmann M.
        • Minde T.
        • Citak M.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Sandiford N.A.
        • Klatte T.O.
        • et al.
        High rate of reinfection with new bacteria following one-stage exchange for enterococcal periprosthetic infection of the knee: a Single-Center study.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 711-716
        • Svensson K.
        • Rolfson O.
        • Mohaddes M.
        • Malchau H.
        • Erichsen Andersson A.
        Reflecting on and managing the emotional impact of prosthetic joint infections on orthopaedic surgeons-a qualitative study.
        Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B: 736-743
        • Parvizi J.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Chen A.F.
        Proceedings of the International Consensus on periprosthetic joint infection.
        Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B: 1450-1452
        • Gehrke T.
        • Zahar A.
        • Kendoff D.
        One-stage exchange: it all began here.
        Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B: 77-83
        • Citak M.
        • Levent A.
        • Suero E.M.
        • Rademacher K.
        • Busch S.-M.
        • Gehrke T.
        A novel radiological classification system of the distal femur.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Abdelaziz H.
        • Grüber H.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Salber J.
        • Citak M.
        What are the factors associated with Re-revision after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip? A case-control study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019; 477: 2258-2263
        • Citak M.
        • Friedenstab J.
        • Abdelaziz H.
        • Suero E.M.
        • Zahar A.
        • Salber J.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for failure after 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty in the management of periprosthetic joint infection.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101: 1061-1069
        • Levent A.
        • Suero E.M.
        • Gehrke T.
        • Citak M.
        Risk factors for aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty with a rotating-hinge implant: a case-control study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103: 517-523