Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Joint Infection | Research

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Authors: Nicola Logoluso, Francesca Alice Pedrini, Ilaria Morelli, Elena De Vecchi, Carlo Luca Romanò, Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Periprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

Results

The infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2007;89:1036–43. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00241.CrossRef

Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00023.CrossRef

Rasouli MR, Porat MD, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J. Proximal femoral replacement and allograft prosthesis composite in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with significant proximal bone loss. Orthop Surg. 2012;4:203–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Al-Taki MM, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Quality of life following proximal femoral replacement using a modular system in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:470–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1522-2.CrossRefPubMed

Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Wolf CF, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Purtill JJ. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2005;87:1777–81. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02420.CrossRef

Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2003;85:2156–62. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200311000-00015.CrossRef

Wimmer MD, Hischebeth GTR, Randau TM, Gathen M, Schildberg FA, Froschen FS, Kohlhof H, Gravius S. Difficult-to-treat pathogens significantly reduce infection resolution in periprosthetic joint infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;98: 115114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115114.CrossRefPubMed

George DA, Drago L, Scarponi S, Gallazzi E, Haddad FS, Romano CL. Predicting lower limb periprosthetic joint infections: a review of risk factors and their classification. World J Orthop. 2017;8:400–11. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i5.400.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Akgun D, Perka C, Trampuz A, Renz N. Outcome of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections caused by pathogens resistant to biofilm-active antibiotics: results from a prospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138:635–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2886-0.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tsukayama DT, Estrada R, Gustilo RB. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. A study of the treatment of one hundred and six infections. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1996;78:512–23. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199604000-00005.CrossRef

11.

Rietbergen L, Kuiper JW, Walgrave S, Hak L, Colen S. Quality of life after staged revision for infected total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2016;26:311–8. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000416.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kuiper JWP, Rustenburg CME, Willems JH, Verberne SJ, Peters EJG, Saouti R. Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip: a single-centre retrospective study. J Bone Jt Infect. 2018;3:143–9. https://doi.org/10.7150/jbji.24366.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Corona PS, Vicente M, Lalanza M, Amat C, Carrera L. Use of modular megaprosthesis in managing chronic end-stage periprosthetic hip and knee infections: Is there an increase in relapse rate? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:627–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2127-9.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Grammatopoulos G, Alvand A, Martin H, Whitwell D, Taylor A, Gibbons CL. Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications. Bone Jt J. 2016;98-B:1463–70. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0244.R1.CrossRef

15.

Korim MT, Esler CN, Ashford RU. Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:2117–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.012.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Shih ST, Wang JW, Hsu CC. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis for failed total hip arthroplasty. Chang Gung Med J. 2007;30:73–80.PubMed

17.

Sewell MD, Hanna SA, Carrington RW, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW. Modular proximal femoral replacement in salvage hip surgery for non-neoplastic conditions. Acta Orthop Belg. 2010;76:493–502.PubMed

18.

Gebert C, Wessling M, Gotze C, Gosheger G, Hardes J. The modular universal tumour and revision system (MUTARS(R)) in endoprosthetic revision surgery. Int Orthop. 2010;34:1261–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1007-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Vaishya R, Thapa SS, Vaish A. Non-neoplastic indications and outcomes of the proximal and distal femur megaprosthesis: a critical review. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020;32:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00034-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen AF, Shohat N. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(1309–1314): e1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078.CrossRef

21.

Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2003;85-A(Suppl 4):1–6. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200300004-00001.CrossRef

22.

Paprosky WG, Weeden SH. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001;24:871–2.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Harris WH, McCarthy JC Jr, O’Neill DA. Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1982;64:1063–7.CrossRef

24.

McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M. Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200210000-00003.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Nguyen M, Sukeik M, Zahar A, Nizam I, Haddad FS. One-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections. Open Orthop J. 2016;10:646–53. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001610010646.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Bemer P, Leger J, Tande D, Plouzeau C, Valentin AS, Jolivet-Gougeon A, Lemarie C, Kempf M, Hery-Arnaud G, Bret L, et al. How many samples and how many culture media to diagnose a prosthetic joint infection: a clinical and microbiological prospective multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54:385–91. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02497-15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Ariza J, Cobo J, Baraia-Etxaburu J, Benito N, Bori G, Cabo J, Corona P, Esteban J, Horcajada JP, Lora-Tamayo J, et al. Executive summary of management of prosthetic joint infections. Clinical practice guidelines by the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2017;35:189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eimc.2016.08.012.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ, Hanssen AD, Unni KK, Osmon DR, Mandrekar JN, Cockerill FR, Steckelberg JM, Greenleaf JF, Patel R. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:654–63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061588.CrossRefPubMed

29.

De Vecchi E, Bortolin M, Signori V, Romano CL, Drago L. Treatment with dithiothreitol improves bacterial recovery from tissue samples in osteoarticular and joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2867–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.008.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Drago L, Signori V, De Vecchi E, Vassena C, Palazzi E, Cappelletti L, Romano D, Romano CL. Use of dithiothreitol to improve the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. J Orthop Res. 2013;31:1694–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22423.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(286):241–6.

32.

Diaz-Ledezma C, Higuera CA, Parvizi J. Success after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a Delphi-based international multidisciplinary consensus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2374–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2866-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.CrossRef

34.

Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27:302–45. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00111-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Peters CL, Hickman JM, Erickson J, Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Mallory TH. Intramedullary total femoral replacement for salvage of the compromised femur associated with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:53–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.12.061.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Calori GM, Colombo M, Malagoli E, Mazzola S, Bucci M, Mazza E. Megaprosthesis in post-traumatic and periprosthetic large bone defects: Issues to consider. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 6):S105-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.032.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Artiaco S, Boggio F, Colzani G, Titolo P, Zoccola K, Bianchi P, Bellomo F. Megaprostheses in the revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. Clinical series and literature review. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;2015(73):229–32.

38.

Doring K, Vertesich K, Martelanz L, Staats K, Bohler C, Hipfl C, Windhager R, Puchner S. Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients. Int Orthop. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05080-8.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ramappa M, McMurtry I, Port A. Direct exchange endoprosthetic reconstruction with tumour prosthesis for periprosthetic knee infection associated with segmental bone defects. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2010;5:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-009-0077-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

George DA, Logoluso N, Castellini G, Gianola S, Scarponi S, Haddad FS, Drago L, Romano CL. Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:553. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Kildow BJ, Della-Valle CJ, Springer BD. Single vs 2-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:S24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.051.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Gomez MM, Tan TL, Manrique J, Deirmengian GK, Parvizi J. The fate of spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2015;97:1495–502. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00958.CrossRef

43.

Logoluso N, Pellegrini A, Suardi V, Morelli I, Battaglia AG, D’Anchise R, De Vecchi E, Zagra L. Can the leukocyte esterase strip test predict persistence of periprosthetic joint infection at second-stage reimplantation? J Arthroplasty. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.022.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kheir MM, Ackerman CT, Tan TL, Benazzo A, Tischler EH, Parvizi J. Leukocyte esterase strip test can predict subsequent failure following reimplantation in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1976–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.031.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Wafa H, Grimer RJ, Reddy K, Jeys L, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Retrospective evaluation of the incidence of early periprosthetic infection with silver-treated endoprostheses in high-risk patients: case-control study. Bone Jt J. 2015;97-B:252–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34554.CrossRef

46.

Romano CL, Malizos K, Capuano N, Mezzoprete R, D’Arienzo M, Van Der Straeten C, Scarponi S, Drago L. Does an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating reduce early post-surgical infection after joint arthroplasty? J Bone Jt Infect. 2016;1:34–41. https://doi.org/10.7150/jbji.15986.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Capuano N, Logoluso N, Gallazzi E, Drago L, Romano CL. One-stage exchange with antibacterial hydrogel coated implants provides similar results to two-stage revision, without the coating, for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:3362–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4896-4.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Mancino F, Di Matteo V, Mocini F, Cacciola G, Malerba G, Perisano C, De Martino I. Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:933. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04711-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty: complications in a 2–11 year follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:37–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679608995606.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Strony J, Sukhonthamarn K, Tan TL, Parvizi J, Brown SA, Nazarian DG. Worse outcomes are associated with proximal femoral replacement following periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss
Authors: Nicola Logoluso
Francesca Alice Pedrini
Ilaria Morelli
Elena De Vecchi
Carlo Luca Romanò
Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Joint Infection
Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Published in: BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01517-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Pre and postoperative lactate levels and lactate clearance in predicting in-hospital mortality after surgery for gastrointestinal perforation

Circular stapling anastomosis with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Restoring the perfusion of accidentally transected right gastroepiploic vessels during gastric conduit harvest for esophagectomy using microvascular anastomosis: a case report and literature review

Does ultrasound evaluation of the axilla increase the rate of axillary lymph node dissection in early stage clinically node negative breast cancer patients?

A novel technique of transpedicular opening-wedge osteotomy for treatment of rigid kyphosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Analysis of the therapeutic effect of artificial leather embedding combined with fascial sleeve flap transplantation on chronic wounds of lower limbs with bone and plate exposure