Kavolus Joseph J, Cunningham Daniel J, Eftekhary Nima, Ting Nicholas T, Griffin William L, Fehring Thomas K
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Arthroplast Today. 2020 Sep 6;6(4):955-958.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.009. eCollection 2020 Dec.
Irrigation and debridement is an attractive treatment option for acute perioperative and acute hematogenous periprosthetic hip infections. We ask the following questions: (1) What are the results of a two-stage reimplantation if preceded by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) compared with two-stage reimplantation without an antecedent DAIR? and (2) Do McPherson Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host criteria influence results?
A total of 114 patients were treated with two-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection. Sixty-five patients were treated initially with a two-stage exchange, whereas 49 patients underwent an antecedent DAIR before a two-stage exchange. Patients were classified based on MSIS host criteria. Demographics demonstrated homogeneity between cohorts. Failure was defined as return to the operating room for infection, draining sinus, or systemic infection.
Treatment failure occurred in 42.9% (21 of 49) of patients treated with an antecedent DAIR. In contrast, treatment failure occurred in only 12.3% (8 of 65) of two-stage only procedures ( < .001). Relative risk of return to the operating room after a two-stage reimplantation with an antecedent DAIR compared with initial resection was 4.52 (95% confidence interval: 1.71, 11.9). MSIS host grading was similar between groups and did not influence the rate of failure in a regression model. The DAIR cohort was also found to consume more resources in terms of hospitalization length and operative procedures ( < .001).
Two-stage exchange procedures for prosthetic hip infections have a higher failure rate and consume more health-care resources when preceded by a failed DAIR. Surgeons and patients should be aware that a failed DAIR may compromise the results of future two-stage procedures.
冲洗清创术是治疗急性围手术期和急性血源性人工髋关节感染的一种有吸引力的治疗选择。我们提出以下问题:(1)与未先行清创、抗生素及植入物保留(DAIR)的二期再植入相比,先行DAIR后的二期再植入结果如何?(2)麦克弗森肌肉骨骼感染学会(MSIS)宿主标准是否会影响结果?
共有114例患者接受了人工髋关节感染的二期翻修术。65例患者最初接受二期翻修术,而49例患者在二期翻修术前先行DAIR。根据MSIS宿主标准对患者进行分类。人口统计学显示两组之间具有同质性。失败定义为因感染、引流窦或全身感染返回手术室。
先行DAIR治疗的患者中,42.9%(49例中的21例)出现治疗失败。相比之下,仅行二期手术的患者中,治疗失败的发生率仅为12.3%(65例中的8例)(P<0.001)。与初次切除相比,先行DAIR的二期再植入术后返回手术室的相对风险为4.52(95%置信区间:1.71,11.9)。两组间MSIS宿主分级相似,在回归模型中不影响失败率。DAIR组在住院时间和手术操作方面也消耗了更多资源(P<0.001)。
对于人工髋关节感染,先行失败的DAIR后的二期翻修术失败率更高,消耗的医疗资源更多。外科医生和患者应意识到,失败的DAIR可能会影响未来二期手术的结果。