Timing of implant-removal in late acute periprosthetic joint infection: A multicenter observational study - 31/07/19
, Marine Sebillotte b, Jose Lomas c, Benjamin Kendrick c, Eva Benavent Palomares d, Oscar Murillo d, Javad Parvizi e, Noam Shohat e, f, Javier Cobo Reinoso g, Rosa Escudero Sánchez g, Marta Fernandez-Sampedro h, Eric Senneville i, Kaisa Huotari j, José Maria Barbero Allende k, Antonio Blanco García l, Jaime Lora-Tamayo m, Matteo Carlo Ferrari n, Danguole Vaznaisiene o, Erlangga Yusuf p, Craig Aboltins q, r, Rihard Trebse s, Mauro José Salles t, Natividad Benito u, Andrea Vila v, Maria Dolores Del Toro w, Tobias Siegfried Kramer x, y, Sabine Petersdorf z, Vicens Diaz-Brito aa, Zeliha Kocak Tufan ab, Marisa Sanchez ac, Cédric Arvieux b, ad, Alex Soriano aeon behalf of the
ESCMID Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI)
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.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Periprosthetic joint infection, Late acute, Hematogenous, Debridement, Revision surgery, Failure
Plan
Vol 79 - N° 3
P. 199-205 - septembre 2019 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- The microbiology of chronic osteomyelitis: Changes over ten years
- Maria Dudareva, Andrew James Hotchen, Jamie Ferguson, Susanne Hodgson, Matthew Scarborough, Bridget L. Atkins, Martin A. McNally
- Clinical impact of an educational antimicrobial stewardship program associated with infectious diseases consultation targeting patients with cancer: Results of a 9-year quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series analysis
- José Molina, Manuel Noguer, José Antonio Lepe, María Antonia Pérez-Moreno, Manuela Aguilar-Guisado, Roberto Lasso de la Vega, Germán Peñalva, Juan Carlos Crespo-Rivas, María Victoria Gil-Navarro, Javier Salvador, José Miguel Cisneros
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?