Kilgus Sofia, Karczewski Daniel, Passkönig Cindy, Winkler Tobias, Akgün Doruk, Perka Carsten, Müller Michael
Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Apr;141(4):577-585. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03444-0. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
Several studies describe risk factors for primary periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and general treatment outcome factors like microbe spectrum or patient-specific risk factors. However, these general and patient dependent findings cannot solely explain all cases of infection persistence after a prior septic revision. This study analyzes possible specific and patient independent reasons for failure after revisions for PJI in knee and hip arthroplasty.
In a prospective analysis all patients were included that were treated: (1) at our department, (2) with a two-stage exchange, (3) between 2013 and 2017, (4) due to an infection persistence after a previous revision for PJI. Possible reasons for infection persistence were identified using a checklist algorithm, based on international guidelines.
70 patients with infection persistence could be included (44 knee joints, 26 hip joints). The average age was 71 years, the CCI (Charlson Comorbidity Index) 2.8 and the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score 2.7. In 85% at least one possible reason for patient independent infection persistence could be identified analyzing the previous infection therapy: (1) 50% inadequate therapy concept (n = 35), (2) 33% inadequate surgical debridement (n = 23), (3) 30% inadequate antimicrobial therapy (n = 21), (4) 13% missed external bacterial primary focus (n = 9). After the individual failure analysis, all 70 patients were treated with a two-stage exchange in our department and in 94.9% infection freedom could be achieved (34.3 ± 10.9 months follow-up).
In the majority of failed revisions with subsequent infection persistence at least one possible patient independent failure cause could be identified. The entire previous therapy should be critically reviewed following failing revisions to optimize the outcome of septic revisions. By using a checklist algorithm, high rates of infection freedom were achieved.
多项研究描述了原发性人工关节周围感染(PJI)的危险因素以及诸如微生物谱或患者特异性危险因素等一般治疗结果因素。然而,这些一般的和依赖于患者的研究结果并不能完全解释先前感染性翻修术后所有感染持续存在的病例。本研究分析了膝关节和髋关节置换术中PJI翻修术后失败的可能的特定且与患者无关的原因。
在一项前瞻性分析中,纳入了所有接受以下治疗的患者:(1)在我们科室;(2)采用两阶段置换;(3)在2013年至2017年期间;(4)由于先前PJI翻修术后感染持续存在。根据国际指南,使用清单算法确定感染持续存在的可能原因。
纳入了70例感染持续存在的患者(44个膝关节,26个髋关节)。平均年龄为71岁,Charlson合并症指数(CCI)为2.8,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分为2.7。在分析先前的感染治疗时,85%的患者至少可确定一个与患者无关的感染持续存在的可能原因:(1)50%治疗方案不当(n = 35),(2)33%手术清创不充分(n = 23),(3)30%抗菌治疗不充分(n = 21),(4)13%遗漏外部细菌原发灶(n = 9)。经过个体失败分析后,所有70例患者均在我们科室接受了两阶段置换治疗,94.9%的患者实现了感染清除(随访34.3±10.9个月)。
在大多数翻修失败且随后感染持续存在的病例中,至少可确定一个与患者无关的可能失败原因。翻修失败后应严格审查整个先前的治疗方案,以优化感染性翻修的结果。通过使用清单算法,实现了较高的感染清除率。