Advertisement

Infection Remediation in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Kevin C. Bigart
  • Denis NamEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has increased in popularity, yet utilization by surgeons varies based on training, experience, or comfort level with the procedure. The operation is growing in popularity, and many institutions are publishing 10-year survival rates above 90%; however, joint replacement registries are still showing relatively high rates of revision and failure compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Among the modes of failure, the frequency of periprosthetic infection following UKA is relatively low and estimated to be between 0.1% and 1.0%. Patients typically present in a similar manner to TKA infections, and surgeons should follow a similar algorithm for appropriate workup and confirmation for infection. Once the diagnosis of UKA infection is confirmed, the best method of management remains unclear, given the limited data available. Options for management include debridement and implant retention (DAIR), one-stage exchange of UKA to TKA and two-stage exchange involving antibiotic spacer placement. The management of UKA PJI involves surgical intervention and involves collaboration with medical and infectious disease services.

Keywords

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty infection Unicompartmental knee replacement infection Unicondylar knee arthroplasty infection Unicondylar knee replacement infection Partial knee replacement infection UKA infection Infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Infection of unicompartmental knee replacement Infection of unicondylar knee arthroplasty Infection of unicondylar knee replacement Infection of partial knee replacement Infection of UKA 

References

  1. 1.
    Campi S, Tibrewal S, Cuthbert R, Tibrewal SB. Unicompartmental knee replacement – Current perspectives. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(1):17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2017.11.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW. Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees—a systematic review. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(1):101–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1367577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A, Abdel MP, Argenson J-N. Long-term results of compartmental arthroplasties of the knee. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(10_Supple_A):9–15.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niinimäki TT, Murray DW, Partanen J, Pajala A, Leppilahti JI. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee. 2011;18(6):432–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW. Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2016;28(1):46–54.  https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.1.46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergeson AG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Sneller MA. Medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early survivorship and analysis of failures in 1000 consecutive cases. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(9 Suppl):172–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foran JRH, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO. Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):102–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2517-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hernandez NM, Petis SM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ, Abdel MP, Pagnano MW. Infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a high risk of subsequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;73:1.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labruyère C, Zeller V, Lhotellier L, et al. Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: One-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(5):553–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasso M, Corona K, D’Apolito R, Mazzitelli G, Panni A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: modes of failure and conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Joints. 2017;05(01):044–50.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epinette J-A, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A, French Society for Hip and Knee. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(6):S124–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Society of Unicondylar Research and Continuing Education. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8):46–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Böhm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplast. 2000;15(8):982–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11112191. Accessed November 17, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adult Reconstruction Division, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations