» Articles » PMID: 38127488

Frequent Microbiological Profile Changes Are Seen in Subsequent-revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection

Overview
Date 2023 Dec 21
PMID 38127488
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. : Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat-revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. : A total of 106 patients were identified. Of these patients, 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. The mean age at first revision was 67 years (SD 10). The Charlson comorbidity index was  2 for 31 patients, 3-4 for 57 patients, and  5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent at least two revisions, 73 patients received three, 47 patients received four, 31 patients received five, and 21 patients received at least six. After six revisions, 90 % of patients had different organisms cultured compared with the initial revision, and 53 % of organisms were multidrug resistant. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase-negative (36 %) and (19 %). Fungus was cultured from 3 % of revisions, and 21 % of infections were polymicrobial. : Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organism, with 90 % of patients having a different organism cultured by their sixth revision. It is therefore important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, taking into account known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support the routine use of empirical antifungals.

Citing Articles

Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Based on Clinical Aspects and Retrieval Analysis of Failed Prosthesis.

Antoniac I, Valeanu N, Niculescu M, Antoniac A, Robu A, Popescu L Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(16).

PMID: 39203142 PMC: 11355717. DOI: 10.3390/ma17163965.

References
1.
Zmistowski B, Tetreault M, Alijanipour P, Chen A, Della Valle C, Parvizi J . Recurrent periprosthetic joint infection: persistent or new infection?. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9):1486-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.021. View

2.
Houdek M, Wagner E, Watts C, Osmon D, Hanssen A, Lewallen D . Morbid obesity: a significant risk factor for failure of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(4):326-32. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00515. View

3.
Kuiper J, van den Bekerom M, van der Stappen J, Nolte P, Colen S . 2-stage revision recommended for treatment of fungal hip and knee prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2013; 84(6):517-23. PMC: 3851663. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.859422. View

4.
Ali F, Wilkinson J, Cooper J, Kerry R, Hamer A, Norman P . Accuracy of joint aspiration for the preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(2):221-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.05.027. View

5.
Parvizi J, Tan T, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen A . The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(5):1309-1314.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. View