Skip to main content
Log in

Periprothetische Infektion

Periprosthetic infection

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die periprothetische Infektion ist eine der gefürchtetsten Komplikationen der Endoprothetik. Im klinischen Alltag resultieren die wesentlichen Probleme jedoch meist nicht aus dem Vorliegen der Infektion, sondern aus der verspäteten Diagnose und einer inadäquaten Therapie. Klinisches Leitsymptom ist der Schmerz. Die Bestimmung des C-reaktiven Proteins und der Blutsenkungsgeschwindigkeit dienen als Screeningmethode, die Sicherung der Diagnose erfolgt durch die Aspiration von Gelenkflüssigkeit. Therapeutisch ist zu berücksichtigen, dass ein gelenkerhaltendes Verfahren nur bei Frühinfekten und hämatogenen Infektionen eine vertretbare Erfolgschance hat. Standard ist heute der zweizeitige Wechsel mit einem Intervall von 6 bis 8 Wochen und begleitender systemischer Antibiotikatherapie. Der einzeitige septische Wechsel ist zwar für den Patienten das angenehmere Verfahren, jedoch an Voraussetzungen geknüpft, die nicht überall gegeben sind. Die Erfolgsrate in der Literatur liegt mit den unterschiedlichen angegeben Konzepten bei durchschnittlich 80–100%. Es gibt kein evidenzbasiertes Vorgehen über den gesamten Behandlungsablauf und viele individuelle Modifikationen. Notwendig ist aber immer eine Strategie in der Behandlungsplanung und ein Konzept möglichst frei von subjektiven Entscheidungskriterien. Sollte die Heilungsrate unter 80% der Fälle liegen, ist die jeweilige Behandlungskonzeption neu zu überarbeiten.

Abstract

Periprosthetic infections represent the most feared complications in orthopedic surgery. Frequently, the substantial challenges result more from a delayed diagnosis and an inadequate therapy than from the infection itself. The guiding symptom is pain. The determination of C-reactive protein (CRP) and the blood sedimentation rate (BSR) is the basic screening test for infection while joint aspiration is commonly used to confirm the diagnosis. Infection treatment with implant preservation is only promising and justifiable in the early postoperative infection period. The current concept of infection treatment consists of a two-stage revision with 6–8 weeks implant-free interval and an accompanying antibiotic therapy. The one-stage revision is the patient friendliest procedure but requires strict prerequisites which may not be given in a number of cases. The reported mean success rates range from 80–100% with the respective therapeutic procedures. However, there is no single evidenced-based therapeutic concept throughout the whole course of treatment but frequently a various number of individual modifications. Nevertheless, a clear strategy in treatment planning using objective criteria without subjective decisions and emotions is essential for the success of therapy. If the healing rate falls under 80% the applied concept must be reconsidered.

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.

Literatur

  1. Ali F, Wilkinson JM, Cooper JR et al (2006) Accuracy of joint aspiration for the preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:221–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baleani M, Persson C, Zolezzi C et al (2008) Biological and biomechanical effects of Vancomycin and Meropenem in acrylic bone cement. J Arthroplasty 23:1232–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrack RL, Aggarwal A, Burnett RS et al (2007) The fate of the unexpected positive intraoperative cultures after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(6 Suppl 2):94–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bedair H, Ting N, Jacovides C, Saxena A et al (2011) The Mark Coventry Award: diagnosis of early postoperative TKA infection using synovial fluid analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):34–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradbury T, Fehring TK, Taunton M et al (2009) The fate of acute methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic knee infections treated by open debridement and retention of components. J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):101–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burnett RSJ, Kelly MA, Hanssen AD, Barrack RL (2007) Technique and timing of two-stage exchange for infection in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:164–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Arciola CR (2006) The significance of infection related to orthopedic devices and issues of antibiotic resistance. Biomaterials 27(11):2331–2339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cui Q, Mihalko WM, Shields JS et al (2007) Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infection associated with total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joints Surg Am 89-A:871–882

    Google Scholar 

  9. Della Valle C, Parvizi J, Bauer TW et al (2010) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(12):760–770

    Google Scholar 

  10. Disch AC, Matziolis G, Perka C (2007) Two-stage operative strategy without local antibiotic treatment for infected hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:691–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M et al (2009) Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1848–1858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner J, Gioe TJ, Tatman P (2010) Can this prosthesis be saved?: Implant salvage attempts in infected primary TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Epub ahead of print]

  13. Garvin KL, Hanssen AD (1995) Current concepts review: infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77-A:1576–1588

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RS et al (2008) Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(8):1637–1643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hanssen AD, Spangehl MJ (2004) Practical applications of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for treatment of infected joint replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 427:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hsieh PH, Shih CH, Chang YH et al (2004) Two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection: comparison between the interim use of antibiotic-loaded cement beads and a spacer prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1989–1997

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hsieh PH, Shih CH, Chang YH et al (2005) Treament of deep infection of the hip associated with massive bone loss. Two-stage revision with an antibiotic-loaded interim cement prosthesis followed by reconstruction with allograft. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87-B:770–775

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hsieh PH, Chang YH, Chen SH et al (2006) High concentration and bioactivity of vancomycin and aztreonam eluted from Simplex cement spacers in two-stage revision of infected hip implants: a study of 46 patients at an average follow-up of 107 days. J Orthop Res 24:1615–1621

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jackson WO, Schmalzried TP (2000) Limited role of direct exchange arthroplasty in the treatment of infected total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:101–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kraay MJ, Goldberg VM, Fitzgerald SJ, Salata MJ (2005) Cementless two-staged total hip arthroplasty for deep periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:243–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lieberman JR, Callaway GH, Salvati EA et al (1994) Treatment of the infected total hip arthroplasty with a two staged reimplantation protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:205–212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Masri BA, Panagiotopoulos KP, Greidanus NV et al (2007) Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:72–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McKenna PB, O’Shea K, Masterson EL (2009) Two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty using a shortened post-operative course of antibiotics. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 29:489–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Morawietz L, Classen RA, Schröder JH et al (2006) Proposal for a histopathological consensus classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane. J Clin Pathol 59:591–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schäfer P, Fink B, Sandow D et al (2008) Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy. Clin Inf Dis 47:1403–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schinsky MF, Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2008) Perioperative testing for joint infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 90-A:1869–1875

    Google Scholar 

  27. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W (2005) New strategies for the treatment of infectious associated with prosthetic joints. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 6:185–190

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tohtz SW, Müller M, Morawietz L et al (2010) Validity of frozen sections for analysis of periprosthetic loosening membranes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(3):762–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Winkler H, Stoiber A, Kaudela K et al (2008) One stage uncemented revision of infected total hip replacement using cancellous allograft bone impregnated with antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg 90-B:1580–1584

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zimmerli W (2006) Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: prosthetic-joint-associated infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 20:1045–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ (2010) AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:771–772

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Perka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perka, C., Haas, N. Periprothetische Infektion. Chirurg 82, 218–226 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-010-2014-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-010-2014-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation