Skip to main content
Log in

Surgical treatment of infected shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the best surgical management of infected shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

A literature review from 1996 to 2016 identified 15 level IV studies that met inclusion criteria. Persistent infection (PI) was considered as treatment failure. Success was regarded as the absence of symptomatic PI without necessity for further treatment. Surgical outcomes were reported according to the mean weighted Constant and Murley score (CMS) for each treatment group.

Results

Overall, 287 patients (146 males/141 females) were identified at a mean follow-up of 50.4 (range 32–99.6) months. The PI in the whole population was 11.5%. The pooled mean CMS, available for 218 patients, was 39 ± 13. Twenty-seven patients (9.4%) were treated with debridement (PI 29.6%, CMS 41 ± 12), 52 patients (18.1%) with resection arthroplasty (PI 11.5%, CMS 29 ± 16), 33 patients (11.5%) with permanent spacers (PI 6.1%, CMS 31 ± 14), 98 patients (34.2%) with two-stage revisions (PI 14.3%, CMS 42 ± 12) and 77 patients (26.8%) with one-stage revisions (PI 3.9%, CMS 49 ± 11).

Debridement showed the highest PI rate (29.6%) and one-stage revisions reported the lowest PI rate (3.9%). Resection arthroplasty and spacers showed the poorest CMS when compared to the other procedures (p ≤ 0.0001). The debridement PI rate was significantly higher than almost any other procedure. CMS was significantly higher in patients undergoing revision compared to non-revision procedures (45 ± 12 vs. 35 ± 14) (p < 0.0001). One-stage revisions achieved significantly better results in terms of the PI rate compared to two-stage revisions (p = 0.0223), but not in terms of CMS.

Conclusion

Debridement showed the highest PI rate (29.6%) and should not be recommended for the management of infected shoulder arthroplasty. Revisions reported better functional outcomes compared to non-revision procedures. The presence of a significantly lower PI rate with comparablely high mean CMS values suggests that one-stage (where technically applicable) could be superior to two-stage revisions.

Unfortunately, well-designed randomized controlled trials using validated patient-based outcomes are lacking in this field.

Level of evidence: Systematic Review of level IV studies, Level IV

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lugli T (1978) Artificial shoulder joint by Pean (1893): the facts of an exceptional intervention and the prosthetic method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 133:215–218

  2. Cofield RH, Chang W, Sperling JW (1999) Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. In: Iannotti JP, Sperling JW (eds) Disorders of the shoulder: diagnosis and management. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA

  3. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC (1990) Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect 39:449–462

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coste JS, Reig S, Trojani C, Berg M, Walch G, Boileau P (2004) The management of infection in arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(1):65–69

  5. Lettin AW, Copeland SA, Scales JT (1982) The Stanmore total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64(1):47–51

  6. Sperling JW, Kozak TK, Hanssen AD, Cofield RH (2001) Infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 382:206–216

  7. Jacquot N, Chuinard CH, Boileau P (2006) Results of deep infection after a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In: Walch G, Boileau P, Molé D, Favard L, Lévigne C, Sirveaux F (eds) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical results, complications, revision. SAURAMPS Medical, Montpellier, France, pp 307–312

  8. Swanson AB, de Groot Swanson G, Sattel AB, Cendo RD, Hynes D, Jar-Ning W (1989) Bipolar implant shoulder arthroplasty. Long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 249:227–247

  9. Saltzman MD, Marecek GS, Edwards SL, Kalainov DM (2011) Infection after shoulder surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19(4):208–218

  10. Hackett DJ, Jr., Crosby LA (2013) Evaluation and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 71(Suppl 2):88–93

  11. Weber P, Utzschneider S, Sadoghi P, Andress HJ, Jansson V, Muller PE (2011) Management of the infected shoulder prosthesis: a retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Int Orthop 35(3):365–373. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1019-3

  12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535

  13. Cuff DJ, Virani NA, Levy J, Frankle MA, Derasari A, Hines B, Pupello DR, Cancio M, Mighell M (2008) The treatment of deep shoulder infection and glenohumeral instability with debridement, reverse shoulder arthroplasty and postoperative antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(3):336–342. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.19408

  14. Ghijselings S, Stuyck J, Debeer P (2013) Surgical treatment algorithm for infected shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of 17 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 79(6):626–635

  15. Grosso MJ, Sabesan VJ, Ho JC, Ricchetti ET, Iannotti JP (2012) Reinfection rates after 1-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty for patients with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(6):754–758. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.052

  16. Ince A, Seemann K, Frommelt L, Katzer A, Loehr JF (2005) One-stage exchange shoulder arthroplasty for peri-prosthetic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(6):814–818. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.15920

  17. Jacquot A, Sirveaux F, Roche O, Favard L, Clavert P, Mole D (2015) Surgical management of the infected reversed shoulder arthroplasty: a French multicenter study of reoperation in 32 patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(11):1713–1722. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.007

  18. Klatte TO, Junghans K, Al-Khateeb H, Rueger JM, Gehrke T, Kendoff D, Neumann J (2013) Single-stage revision for peri-prosthetic shoulder infection: outcomes and results. Bone Joint J 95-B(3):391–395. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B3.30134

  19. Mileti J, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2004) Reimplantation of a shoulder arthroplasty after a previous infected arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(5):528–531. doi:10.1016/S1058274604000862

  20. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, Mayer M, Stundner O, Tauber M (2014) Treatment strategies for infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(5):723–731. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1251-9

  21. Rispoli DM, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH (2007) Pain relief and functional results after resection arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(9):1184–1187. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B9.19464

  22. Romano CL, Borens O, Monti L, Meani E, Stuyck J (2012) What treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection? Results from a multicentre retrospective series. Int Orthop 36(5):1011–1017. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1492-y

  23. Seitz WH, Jr., Damacen H (2002) Staged exchange arthroplasty for shoulder sepsis. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):36–40

  24. Strickland JP, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2008) The results of two-stage re-implantation for infected shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):460–465. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.20002

  25. Verhelst L, Stuyck J, Bellemans J, Debeer P (2011) Resection arthroplasty of the shoulder as a salvage procedure for deep shoulder infection: does the use of a cement spacer improve outcome? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(8):1224–1233. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.003

  26. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res (214):160–164

  27. Richards J, Inacio MC, Beckett M, Navarro RA, Singh A, Dillon MT, Sodl JF, Yian EH (2014) Patient and procedure-specific risk factors for deep infection after primary shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(9):2809–2815. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3696-5

  28. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Schleck C, Harmsen WS, Cofield RH (2012) Periprosthetic infections after total shoulder arthroplasty: a 33-year perspective. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(11):1534–1541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.006

  29. Gorbaty JD, Lucas RM, Matsen FA, 3rd (2016) Detritic synovitis can mimic a Propionibacterium periprosthetic infection. Int Orthop 40(1):95–98. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3032-z

  30. Postacchini R, Carbone S, Canero G, Ripani M, Postacchini F (2015) Reverse shoulder prosthesis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2916-2

  31. Maier GS, Horas K, Seeger JB, Roth KE, Kurth AA, Maus U (2014) Is there an association between periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels? Int Orthop 38(7):1499–1504. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2338-6

  32. Shahi A, Parvizi J (2015) Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Arch Bone Joint Surg 3(2):72–81

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

The investigation was performed at Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli – University of Bologna – Italy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marcheggiani Muccioli, G., Huri, G., Grassi, A. et al. Surgical treatment of infected shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 823–830 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3399-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3399-0

Keywords

Navigation