Klingebiel Sebastian, Theil Christoph, Gosheger Georg, Schneider Kristian Nikolaus, Ackmann Thomas, Timme Maximilian, Schorn Dominik, Liem Dennis, Rickert Carolin
Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Institute for Legal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 9;10(2):218. doi: 10.3390/jcm10020218.
Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed.
Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), "quick" Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types.
The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties.
Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.
人工肩关节周围感染是肩关节置换术后的严重并发症。一种潜在的治疗方案是两阶段假体置换。关于该手术的临床结果,包括无感染生存率和患者满意度的数据较少。在本研究中,我们调查了因人工肩关节周围感染进行两阶段翻修术后的感染复发情况、无翻修生存率和临床结果。此外,还分析了预后不良的原因。
回顾性确定16例肩关节感染后接受两阶段翻修的患者。通过Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析感染复发情况。用主观肩关节值(SSV)、“快速”上肢、肩部和手部功能障碍(qDASH)以及Rowe评分对临床结果进行量化。术前和术后测量活动范围(ROM)。根据不同的再植入假体类型,在亚组分析中比较术后评分和ROM。
术后1年及最后随访(平均33.2个月)时,无再感染的植入物生存率为81%。术后1年及最后随访时,总体无翻修生存率为56%。作为再植入一部分接受反式肩关节置换术(RSA)的患者残疾程度和长期并发症较少。与翻修为巨型假体或大头半关节置换术的患者相比,该组患者的主观稳定性和功能更好。
肩关节人工关节周围感染后的两阶段翻修可使大多数患者得到适当的感染控制。然而,由于机械故障或再感染导致的总体并发症和翻修率较高。就功能和患者满意度而言,RSA再植入似乎优于其他假体模型。因此,保留骨质手术和肩胛盂重建可能会增加RSA再植入的可能性,并有可能改善肩关节感染相关两阶段翻修的预后。