Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An often-unrecognized entity as cause of recurrent infection after successfully treated two-stage exchange arthroplasty: hematogenous infection

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Reinfection after two-stage exchange arthroplasty is a difficult clinical scenario with limited data on adequate treatment algorithms. Beside the possibility of treatment failure and a new intraoperative infection at the time of reimplantation, hematogenous seeding could play an up to date underestimated crucial role as another cause of an infection after two-stage exchange. The aim of this study was to evaluate its incidence and treatment possibilities in a prospectively followed case series.

Methods

All consecutive hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection cases (93 hips and 89 knees) treated according to a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm at our institution with a two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2013 to 2015 were included and followed prospectively to identify recurrent infections due to hematogenous seeding.

Results

Six percent from our septic revision hip and knee arthroplasties (11 of 182, including 5 hips and 6 knees) were identified with a hematogenous reinfection after a mean follow-up of 31.8 months (range 14–48 months). The mean time to reinfection after reimplantation was 12.2 months (range 3.1–35.1). In all but two cases was the causative microorganism different than isolated at the time of initial two-stage exchange. In 5 of 11 patients, the primary focus of infection was identified.

Conclusion

Hematogenous infection after a successful two-stage exchange arthroplasty is a rare but very important cause of a reinfection. With our work, we aim at raising the awareness for this entity and recommend consideration of irrigation and debridement with implant retention in these cases, as well as possibly the identification of a primary infection source.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooper HJ, Della Valle CJ (2013) The two-stage standard in revision total hip replacement. Bone Jt J 95-B(11 Suppl A):84–87. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32906

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen SY, Hu CC, Chen CC, Chang YH, Hsieh PH (2015) Two-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection: mean follow-up of ten years. Biomed Res Int 2015:345475. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/345475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ibrahim MS, Raja S, Khan MA, Haddad FS (2014) A multidisciplinary team approach to two-stage revision for the infected hip replacement: a minimum five-year follow-up study. Bone Jt J 96-B(10):1312–1318. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.32875

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oussedik SI, Dodd MB, Haddad FS (2010) Outcomes of revision total hip replacement for infection after grading according to a standard protocol. J Bone Jt Surg Br 92(9):1222–1226. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.23663

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tan TL, Gomez MM, Manrique J, Parvizi J, Chen AF (2016) Positive culture during reimplantation increases the risk of subsequent failure in two-stage exchange arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 98(15):1313–1319. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.01469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kheir MM, Tan TL, Gomez MM, Chen AF, Parvizi J (2016) Patients with failed prior two-stage exchange have poor outcomes after further surgical intervention. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gomez MM, Tan TL, Manrique J, Deirmengian GK, Parvizi J (2015) The fate of spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97(18):1495–1502. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Azzam K, McHale K, Austin M, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2009) Outcome of a second two-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic knee infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(7):1706–1714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0739-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Triantafyllopoulos GK, Memtsoudis SG, Zhang W, Ma Y, Sculco TP, Poultsides LA (2016) Periprosthetic infection recurrence after 2-stage exchange arthroplasty: failure or fate? J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sendi P, Zimmerli W (2011) Challenges in periprosthetic knee-joint infection. Int J Artif Organs 34(9):947–956. https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sendi P, Zimmerli W (2012) Antimicrobial treatment concepts for orthopaedic device-related infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 18(12):1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ochsner PEBO., Bodler PM, Broger I, Eich G, Hefti F, Maurer T, Nötzli H, Seiler S, Suva D, Trampuz A, Uckay I, Vogt M, Zimmerli W (2016) Infections of the musculoskeletal system. Basic principles, prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Swiss orthopaedics in-house publisher, Grandvaux

    Google Scholar 

  14. Akgun D, Trampuz A, Perka C, Renz N (2017) High failure rates in treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection: results from a seven-year retrospective cohort study. Bone Jt J 99-B(5):653–659. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2016-0851.R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Akgun D, Perka C, Trampuz A, Renz N (2018) Outcome of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections caused by pathogens resistant to biofilm-active antibiotics: results from a prospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2886-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Akgun D, Muller M, Perka C, Winkler T (2017) A positive bacterial culture during re-implantation is associated with a poor outcome in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for deep infection. Bone Jt J 99-B(11):1490–1495. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B11.BJJ-2017-0243-R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Krenn V, Morawietz L, Perino G, Kienapfel H, Ascherl R, Hassenpflug GJ, Thomsen M, Thomas P, Huber M, Kendoff D, Baumhoer D, Krukemeyer MG, Natu S, Boettner F, Zustin J, Kolbel B, Ruther W, Kretzer JP, Tiemann A, Trampuz A, Frommelt L, Tichilow R, Soder S, Muller S, Parvizi J, Illgner U, Gehrke T (2014) Revised histopathological consensus classification of joint implant related pathology. Pathol Res Pract 210(12):779–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2014.09.017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez D, Pigrau C, Euba G, Cobo J, Garcia-Lechuz J, Palomino J, Riera M, Del Toro MD, Granados A, Ariza X, Group R (2010) Acute haematogenous prosthetic joint infection: prospective evaluation of medical and surgical management. Clin Microbiol Infect 16(12):1789–1795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03157.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Crockarell JR, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, Morrey BF (1998) Treatment of infection with debridement and retention of the components following hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(9):1306–1313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Diaz-Ledezma C, Higuera CA, Parvizi J (2013) Success after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a Delphi-based international multidisciplinary consensus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(7):2374–2382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2866-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zmistowski B, Tetreault MW, Alijanipour P, Chen AF, Della Valle CJ, Parvizi J (2013) Recurrent periprosthetic joint infection: persistent or new infection? J Arthroplasty 28(9):1486–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bejon P, Berendt A, Atkins BL, Green N, Parry H, Masters S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Byren I (2010) Two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: predictors of outcome and the role of reimplantation microbiology. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(3):569–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkp469

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haddad FS, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Manktelow AR, Bacarese-Hamilton I (2000) Two-stage uncemented revision hip arthroplasty for infection. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82(5):689–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fehring KA, Abdel MP, Ollivier M, Mabry TM, Hanssen AD (2017) Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic knee infection is dependent on host grade. J Bone Jt Surg Am 99(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martinez-Pastor JC, Munoz-Mahamud E, Vilchez F, Garcia-Ramiro S, Bori G, Sierra J, Martinez JA, Font L, Mensa J, Soriano A (2009) Outcome of acute prosthetic joint infections due to gram-negative bacilli treated with open debridement and retention of the prosthesis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53(11):4772–4777. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00188-09

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fink B, Schuster P, Schwenninger C, Frommelt L, Oremek D (2017) A standardized regimen for the treatment of acute postoperative infections and acute hematogenous infections associated with hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 32(4):1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.10.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sendi P, Banderet F, Graber P, Zimmerli W (2011) Periprosthetic joint infection following Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Infect 63(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2011.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Uckay I, Lubbeke A, Emonet S, Tovmirzaeva L, Stern R, Ferry T, Assal M, Bernard L, Lew D, Hoffmeyer P (2009) Low incidence of haematogenous seeding to total hip and knee prostheses in patients with remote infections. J Infect 59(5):337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2009.08.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Perez-Prieto D, Portillo ME, Puig-Verdie L, Alier A, Martinez S, Sorli L, Horcajada JP, Monllau JC (2017) C-reactive protein may misdiagnose prosthetic joint infections, particularly chronic and low-grade infections. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3430-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Claassen L, Ettinger S, Pastor MF, Budde S, Windhagen H, Floerkemeier T (2016) The value of arthroscopic neosynovium biopsies to diagnose periprosthetic knee joint low-grade infection. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(12):1753–1759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2574-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sendi P, Banderet F, Graber P, Zimmerli W (2011) Clinical comparison between exogenous and haematogenous periprosthetic joint infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect 17(7):1098–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03510.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M (2001) Infection in total knee replacement: a retrospective review of 6489 total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Murgier J, Laffosse JM, Cailliez J, Cavaignac E, Murgier P, Bayle-Iniguez X, Chiron P, Bonnevialle P (2016) Is the prognosis the same for periprosthetic joint infections due to Staphylococcus aureus versus coagulase-negative staphylococci? A retrospective study of 101 patients with 2-year minimum follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(10):1357–1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2533-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Zeller V, Lavigne M, Leclerc P, Lhotellier L, Graff W, Ziza JM, Desplaces N, Mamoudy P (2009) Group B streptococcal prosthetic joint infections: a retrospective study of 30 cases. Presse Med 38(11):1577–1584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2009.02.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Balato G, Franceschini V, Ascione T, Lamberti A, Balboni F, Baldini A (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid, blood markers, and microbiological testing in chronic knee prosthetic infections. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(2):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2832-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(11):2992–2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lisboa T, Seligman R, Diaz E, Rodriguez A, Teixeira PJ, Rello J (2008) C-reactive protein correlates with bacterial load and appropriate antibiotic therapy in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 36(1):166–171. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000297886.32564.CF

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, Berlin, 13353, Germany

    Doruk Akgün, Michael Müller, Carsten Perka & Tobias Winkler

Authors
  1. Doruk Akgün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Perka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DA: designing the study, data analysis, and drafting paper. CP: critically revising paper and approval of the final version. MM: interpretation of data, critically revising paper, and approval of the final version. TW: interpretation of data, critically revising paper, and approval of the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doruk Akgün.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akgün, D., Müller, M., Perka, C. et al. An often-unrecognized entity as cause of recurrent infection after successfully treated two-stage exchange arthroplasty: hematogenous infection. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 1199–1206 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2972-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2972-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation