Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

Open Access 18-03-2022 | Wound Debridement | Knee Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: treatment options and outcomes. What is the current evidence in literature?

Authors: Andrea Zanirato, Luca Cavagnaro, Francesco Chiarlone, Emanuele Quarto, Matteo Formica

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 2/2023

Abstract

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) will increase. The aim of this review is to evaluate current evidence regarding treatment options, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes of PJI management in UKAs.

Methods

A systematic review of English literature was performed. Retrospective and prospective studies providing treatment options, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes of PJI following UKAs were included. PJI type, treatment, survival rate with no reoperation for infection and survival rate with no reoperation for any cause were evaluated.

Results

Eleven articles were included. Three studies focusing on PJI following UKA (45 cases) report a survival rate with no reoperation for infection of 68.9% and a survival rate with no reoperation for any cause of 48.9%. Eight articles concerning UKA failure modes (28 cases) overestimate survival rate with no reoperation for infection (88.9%) and survival rate with no reoperation for any cause (88.9%) (p < 0.05). DAIR reports a rate of infection eradication failure ranging from 43.8 to 100%. 1SE allows for a survival rate with no reoperation for infection of 100%. 2SE reports a rate of infection eradication failure ranging from 0 to 12.5%. A high rate of early aseptic reoperation is reported, despite infection eradication (20% in DAIR; 28.5% in 2SE).

Conclusions

Treatment strategy is determined by symptom timing, PJI type (acute vs chronic), causative organism, patient’s comorbidities. A longer duration of PJI or severe host and extremity status seems to require 2SE or 1SE. Patients who have a shorter duration of PJI could receive DAIR.

Casper DS, Fleischman AN, Papas PV, Grossman J, Scuderi GR, Lonner JH (2019) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides significantly greater improvement in function than total knee arthroplasty despite equivalent satisfaction for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 34:1611–1616CrossRefPubMed

Scott CEH, Wade FA, MacDonald D, Nutton RW (2018) Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:719–729CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2019) American joint replacement registry (AJRR): 2019 annual report. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont

Australian Orthopaedic Association (2019) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOAN-JRR). Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: 2019 Annual report. Australian Orthopaedic Association, Adelaide

National Joint Registry (2019) National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: 16th Annual Report 2019. National Joint Registry, Hemel Hempstead

National Joint Registry (2018) The New Zealand Joint Registry twenty years report January 1999 to December 2018. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association, Christchurch

Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ (2008) Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 23:408–412CrossRefPubMed

Premkumar A, Kolin DA, Farley KX et al (2021) Projected economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee in the United States. J Arthroplasty 36(5):1484-1489.e3CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J (2008) Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 23:984CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tay ML, McGlashan SR, Monk AP, Young SW (2021) Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03827-xCrossRefPubMed

11.

Koh CK, Zeng I, Ravi S et al (2017) Periprosthetic joint infection is the main cause of failure for modern knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 11,134 knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2194–2201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5396-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Hansen EN, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Lonner JH (2019) Lonner Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large United States databases. J Arthroplasty 34:1617–1625CrossRefPubMed

13.

Society of Unicondylar Research and Continuing Education (2012) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:46–50CrossRef

14.

Chalmers BP, Kapadia M, Chiu YF et al (2020) Treatment and outcome of periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 35:1917–1923CrossRefPubMed

15.

International Consensus Meeting (ICM) Guidelines on Musculoskeletal Infection. Pages 412–423. Available at: https://icmphilly.com/document/icm-2018- hip-and-knee-document/ https://icmphilly.com/document/icm-2018- hip-and-knee-document/.

16.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2016) The Oxford levels of evidence 2. Oxford center for evidence-based medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index .aspx?o=5653. Accessed March 2021.

18.

Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ et al (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2992–2994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Hernandez NM, Petis SM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ, Abdel MP, Pagnano MW (2019) Infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a high risk of subsequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477:70–77CrossRefPubMed

20.

Labruyere C, Zeller V, Lhotellier L et al (2015) Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:553–557CrossRefPubMed

21.

Singer J, Merz A, Frommelt L, Fink B (2012) High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1461–1471CrossRefPubMed

22.

Burger JA, Kleeblad LJ, Laas N, Pearle AD (2020) Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: a single-surgeon study of 1018 knees. Bone Joint J 102:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B1.BJJ-2019-0510.R1CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mohammad HR, Kennedy JA, Mellon SJ et al (2020) Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 28:1479–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05544-wCrossRef

24.

Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C et al (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 97B:1493–1500. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634CrossRef

25.

Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. ClinOrthopRelat Res 469:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2CrossRef

26.

Saxler G, Temmen D, Bontemps G (2004) Medium-term results of the AMC-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 11:349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.03.008CrossRefPubMed

27.

Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T et al (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.03144CrossRefPubMed

28.

Xue H, Tu Y, Ma T et al (2017) Up to twelve years follow-up of the Oxford phase three unicompartmental knee replacement in China: seven hundred and eight knees from an independent centre. IntOrthop 41:1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3492-445CrossRef

29.

Elsissy JG, Liu JN, Wilton PJ et al (2020) Bacterial septic arthritis of the adult native knee joint. JBJS Reviews 8(1):e0059CrossRefPubMed

30.

Alder KD, Lee I, Munger AM, Kwon HK, Morris MT, Cahill SV, Back J, Yu KE, Lee FY (2020) Intracellular Staphylococcus aureus in bone and joint infections: a mechanism of disease recurrence, inflammation, and bone and cartilage destruction. Bone 141:115568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115568CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bohler C, Dragana M, Puchner S, Windhager R, Holinka J (2016) Treatment of septic arthritis of the knee: a comparison between arthroscopy and arthrotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3147–3154CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sabater-Martos M, Hernández Hermoso JA, García Oltra E, Molinos S, Martínez-Pastor JC (2020) Validity of the KLIC and CRIME80 scores in predicting failure in late acute infection treated by debridement and implant retention. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 64(6):415–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2020.05.002CrossRef

33.

Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M et al (2018) Metaphyseal sleeves in total knee arthroplasty revision: complications, clinical and radiological results. A systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(7):993–1001CrossRefPubMed

34.

Divano S, Cavagnaro L et al (2018) Porous metal cones: gold standard for massive bone loss in complex revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of current literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(6):851–863CrossRefPubMed

35.

Zanirato A, Formica M, Cavagnaro L et al (2020) Metaphyseal cones and sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: two sides of the same coin? Complications, clinical and radiological results—a systematic review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg 104:25–35CrossRefPubMed

Title: Periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: treatment options and outcomes. What is the current evidence in literature?
Authors: Andrea Zanirato
Luca Cavagnaro
Francesco Chiarlone
Emanuele Quarto
Matteo Formica
Publication date: 18-03-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Wound Debridement
Joint Infection
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04414-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: treatment options and outcomes. What is the current evidence in literature?

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2023

Tranexamic acid is safe and effective in patients with heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation during total joint arthroplasty

Injectable autologous chondrocyte implantation in acetabular cartilage defects: 2-year minimum clinical and MRI results

The impact of posterior-stabilized vs. constrained polyethylene liners in revision total knee arthroplasty

The application of low-dose dexamethasone in total knee arthroplasty: finding out the best route and dosage schedule

History of COVID-19 infection is not associated with increased d-dimer levels and risk of deep-vein thrombosis in total joint arthroplasty

Mechanical failure of total hip arthroplasties and associated risk factors