Jan Geurts

Good results in postoperative and hematogenous deep infections of 89 stable total hip and knee replacements with retention of prosthesis and local antibiotics

Background Deep postoperative and hematogenous prosthesis infections may be treated with retention of the prosthesis, if the prosthesis is stable. How long the infection may be present to preclude a good result is unclear. Patients and methods We retrospectively studied 89 deep-infected stable prostheses from 69 total hip replacements and 20 total knee replacements. There were 83 early or delayed postoperative infections and 6 hematogenous. In the postoperative infections, treatment had started 12 days to 2 years after implantation. In the hematogenous infections, symptoms had been present for 6 to 9 days. The patients had been treated with debridement, prosthesis retention, systemic antibiotics, and local antibiotics: gentamicin-PMMA beads or gentamicin collagen fleeces. The minimum follow-up time was 1.5 years. We investigated how the result of the treatment had been influenced by the length of the period the infection was present, and by other variables such as host characteristics, infection stage, and type of bacteria. Results In postoperative infections, the risk of failure increased with a longer postoperative interval: from 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1–0.3) if the treatment had started ≥ 4 weeks postoperatively to 0.5 (CI: 0.2–0.8) if it had started at ≥ 8 weeks. The relative risk for success was 0.6 (CI: 0.3–0.95) if the treatment had started ≥ 8 weeks. In the hematogenous group, 5 of 6 infections had been treated successfully. Interpretation A longer delay before the start of the treatment caused an increased failure rate, but this must be weighed against the advantage of keeping the prosthesis. We consider a failure rate of < 50% to be acceptable, and we therefore advocate keeping the prosthesis for up to 8 weeks postoperatively, and in hematogenous infections with a short duration of symptoms.

Bone graft substitutes in active or suspected infection. Contra-indicated or not?

Treatment of infection in clinical orthopaedic and trauma care is a time consuming and costly endeavour. More than once, it will lead to extraction of implant material and additional surgical interventions. Currently, debridement, implantation of PMMA beads impregnated with antibiotics most often with implant exchange are the gold standard for deep infection treatment. Recently bone graft substitute materials such as calcium phosphate, collagen fleeces and bioglasses have appeared for specific use in infection treatment. Although these materials show great potential, their supporting level of evidence is still limited. This review paper provides an overview of current understanding and therapies for infection treatment and provides concepts for the use of new developed biomaterials in infection treatment. Furthermore, the benefits and risks of using biomaterials in infection treatment are discussed and the level of evidence of a number of new materials is presented.

Clinical Applications of S53P4 Bioactive Glass in Bone Healing and Osteomyelitic Treatment: A Literature Review

Nowadays, S53P4 bioactive glass is indicated as a bone graft substitute in various clinical applications. This review provides an overview of the current published clinical results on indications such as craniofacial procedures, grafting of benign bone tumour defects, instrumental spondylodesis, and the treatment of osteomyelitis. Given the reported results that are based on examinations, such as clinical examinations by the surgeons, radiographs, CT, and MRI images, S53P4 bioactive glass may be beneficial in the various reported applications. Especially in craniofacial reconstructions like mastoid obliteration and orbital floor reconstructions, in grafting bone tumour defects, and in the treatment of osteomyelitis very promising results are obtained. Randomized clinical trials need to be performed in order to determine whether bioactive glass would be able to replace the current golden standard of autologous bone usage or with the use of antibiotic containing PMMA beads (in the case of osteomyelitis).

Clinical Application of Antimicrobial Bone Graft Substitute in Osteomyelitis Treatment: A Systematic Review of Different Bone Graft Substitutes Available in Clinical Treatment of Osteomyelitis

Osteomyelitis is a common occurrence in orthopaedic surgery, which is caused by different bacteria. Treatment of osteomyelitis patients aims to eradicate infection by debridement surgery and local and systemic antibiotic therapy. Local treatment increases success rates and can be performed with different antimicrobial bone graft substitutes. This review is performed to assess the level of evidence of synthetic bone graft substitutes in osteomyelitis treatment. According to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews, different types of clinical studies concerning treatment of osteomyelitis with bone graft substitutes are included. These studies are assessed on their methodological quality as level of evidence and bias and their clinical outcomes as eradication of infection. In the fifteen included studies, the levels of evidence were weak and in ten out of the fifteen studies there was a moderate to high risk of bias. However, first results of the eradication of infection in these studies showed promising results with their relatively high success rates and low complication rates. Due to the low levels of evidence and high risks of bias of the included studies, these results are inconclusive and no conclusions regarding the performed clinical studies of osteomyelitis treatment with antimicrobial bone graft substitutes can be drawn.

Antibacterial Bioactive Glass, S53P4, for Chronic Bone Infections – A Multinational Study

Osteomyelitis is an infectious process in bone that occasionally leads to bone destruction. Traditionally, the surgical treatment procedure is performed in combination with systemic and local antibiotics as a two-stage procedure that uses autograft or allograft bone for filling of the cavitary defect. Bioactive glass (BAG-S53P4) is a bone substitute with proven antibacterial and bone bonding properties.One hundred and sixteen patients who had verified chronic osteomyelitis was treated using BAG-S53P4 as part of the treatment. Most of the patients had previously undergone numerous procedures, sometimes for decades. A register of patient data obtained from 11 centers from Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Azerbaijan and Poland was set-up and continuously maintained at Helsinki University Central Hospital.The location of the osteomyelitis was mainly in the tibia followed by the femur and then the calcaneus. The median age of the patients was 48 years (15-87). The patients were either treated according to a one-stage procedure without local antibiotics (85 %) or by a two-stage procedure using antibiotic beads in the first procedure (15 %). The minimum follow-up was 1 year (12-95 months, median 31).The cure rate was 104/116, the total success rate 90 % and most of the patients showed a rapid recovery.The study shows that (BAG-S53P4) can be used in a one-stage procedure in treatment of osteomyelitis with excellent results.

Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of a Fully Hydroxyapatite-Coated Femoral Revision Stem: Excessive Stress Shielding Incidence and its Consequences

Stress shielding remains a concern in total hip arthroplasty. The consequences of stress shielding in hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component revisions were evaluated in a prospective cohort study. A total of 106 patients operated on by revision total hip arthroplasty were identified. Sixty-three patients were eligible for clinical and radiologic assessment of osseointegration, bone remodeling, and stress shielding. Five patients showed evidence of excessive stress shielding. One patient experienced a periprosthetic fracture. No adverse events occurred in the remaining patients with a low rate of thigh pain and reliable osseointegration. This is the only available study concerning mid- to long-term consequences of excessive stress shielding in hydroxyapatite-coated revision stems. We advocate surgeons using these stems to remain vigilant and be aware of possible stress shielding side effects.

Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — Aseptic loosening and infection are 2 of the most common causes of revision of hip implants. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces not only the rate of revision due to infection but also the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. This suggests under-diagnosis of infections in patients with presumed aseptic loosening and indicates that current diagnostic tools are suboptimal. In a previous multicenter study on 176 patients undergoing revision of a total hip arthroplasty due to presumed aseptic loosening, optimized diagnostics revealed that 4–13% of the patients had a low-grade infection. These infections were not treated as such, and in the current follow-up study the effect on mid- to long-term implant survival was investigated. Patients and methods — Patients were sent a 2-part questionnaire. Part A requested information about possible re-revisions of their total hip arthroplasty. Part B consisted of 3 patient-related outcome measure questionnaires (EQ5D, Oxford hip score, and visual analog scale for pain). Additional information was retrieved from the medical records. The group of patients found to have a low-grade infection was compared to those with aseptic loosening. Results — 173 of 176 patients from the original study were included. In the follow-up time between the revision surgery and the current study (mean 7.5 years), 31 patients had died. No statistically significant difference in the number of re-revisions was found between the infection group (2 out of 21) and the aseptic loosening group (13 out of 152); nor was there any significant difference in the time to re-revision. Quality of life, function, and pain were similar between the groups, but only 99 (57%) of the patients returned part B. Interpretation — Under-diagnosis of low-grade infection in conjunction with presumed aseptic revision of total hip arthroplasty may not affect implant survival.

2-stage revision of 120 deep infected hip and knee prostheses using gentamicin-PMMA beads: Results after 5 (2–20) years

Background and purpose — A 2-stage revision is the most common treatment for late deep prosthesis-related infections and in all cases of septic loosening. However, there is no consensus about the optimal interval between the 2 stages. Patients and methods — We retrospectively studied 120 deep infections of total hip (n = 95) and knee (n = 25) prostheses that had occurred over a period of 25 years. The mean follow-up time was 5 (2–20) years. All infections had been treated with extraction, 1 or more debridements with systemic antibiotics, and implantation of gentamicin-PMMA beads. There had been different time intervals between extraction and reimplantation: median 14 (11–47) days for short-term treatment with uninterrupted hospital stay, and 7 (3–22) months for long-term treatment with temporary discharge. We analyzed the outcome regarding resolution of the infection and clinical results. Results — 88% (105/120) of the infections healed, with no difference in healing rate between short- and long-term treatment. 82 prostheses were reimplanted. In the most recent decade, we treated patients more often with a long-term treatment but reduced the length of time between the extraction and the reimplantation. More reimplantations were performed in long-term treatments than in short-term treatments, despite more having difficult-to-treat infections with worse soft-tissue condition. Interpretation — Patient, wound, and infection considerations resulted in an individualized treatment with different intervals between stages. The 2-stage revision treatment in combination with local gentamicin-PMMA beads gave good results even with difficult prosthesis infections and gentamicin-resistant bacteria.

Mechanical behaviour of Bioactive Glass granules and morselized cancellous bone allograft in load bearing defects

Bioactive Glass (BAG) granules are osteoconductive and possess unique antibacterial properties for a synthetic biomaterial. To assess the applicability of BAG granules in load-bearing defects, the aim was to compare mechanical behaviour of graft layers consisting of BAG granules and morselized cancellous bone allograft in different volume mixtures under clinically relevant conditions. The graft layers were mechanically tested, using two mechanical testing modalities with simulated physiological loading conditions: highly controllable confined compression tests (CCT) and more clinically realistic in situ compression tests (ISCT) in cadaveric porcine bone defects. Graft layer impaction strain, residual strain, aggregate modulus, and creep strain were determined in CCT. Graft layer porosity was determined using micro computed tomography. The ISCT was used to determine graft layer subsidence in bone environment. ANOVA showed significant differences (p<0.001) between different graft layer compositions. True strains absolutely decreased for increasing BAG content: impaction strain -0.92 (allograft) to -0.39 (BAG), residual strain -0.12 to -0.01, and creep strain -0.09 to 0.00 respectively. Aggregate modulus increased with increasing BAG content from 116 to 653MPa. Porosity ranged from 66% (pure allograft) to 15% (pure BAG). Subsidence was highest for allograft, and remarkably low for a 1:1 BAG-allograft volume mixture. Both BAG granules and allograft morsels as stand-alone materials exhibit suboptimal mechanical behaviour for load-bearing purpose. BAG granules are difficult to handle and less porous, whereas allograft subsides and creeps. A 1:1 volume mixture of BAG and allograft is therefore proposed as the best graft material in load-bearing defects.

Added value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing infected hip prosthesis

Background The diagnosis of infected hip prosthesis is frequently not straightforward yet very important as it changes treatment. Purpose To retrospectively investigate the added value of 18F-FDG PET/CT to conventional tests including radiography, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/C-reactive protein (CRP) testing, and joint aspiration, in diagnosing infected hip prosthesis. Material and Methods Seventy-eight hip prostheses of 78 patients (55% men; mean age = 66.5 years; age range = 30–85 years) with non-specific clinical presentation, i.e. no abscess or sinus tract communicating with the joint space at clinical examination, were analyzed. Cultures of intra-articular fluid and peri-implant tissues after revision surgery or clinical follow-up ≥6 months served as gold standard. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of radiography, ESR/CRP testing, aspiration culture, and white blood cell (WBC) count without and with the addition of 18F-FDG PET/CT were compared. Results The addition of 18F-FDG PET/CT increased AUCs: for radiography with 0.212, P = 0.001; for ESR/CRP testing with 0.076, P = 0.072; for aspiration culture with 0.126, P = 0.032; and for aspiration WBC count with 0.191, P = 0.035. Conclusion This study shows that 18F-FDG PET/CT adds to individual conventional tests in diagnosing infected hip prosthesis. It may improve the preoperative planning and should therefore be considered in the diagnostic work-up. Future studies should define the exact place of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic work-up of periprosthetic joint infection.