Journal Article

Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

Kladny, Bernd, Mittelmeier, Wolfram, Rimke, Christina, Haas, Holger, Osmanski-Zenk, Katrin, Wirtz, Dieter C., Klinder, Annett, Lohmann, Christoph H.

2021

Overview

Background There are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), however, national or international guidelines for a standardised treatment regime are still lacking. The present paper evaluates the use of the predominant treatment protocols for PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ) in Germany based on an EndoCert questionnaire. Materials and methods The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the treatment protocols for septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ. Questions targeted the various treatment options including prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and diagnostic sampling prior to re-implantation. All certified EPZ participated ( n  = 504) and the results from the current survey in 2020 were compared to data from a previous analysis in 2015. Results The number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option increased (hip: + 6.3%; knee: + 6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4–8 week period as the preferred interval between prosthesis removal and re-implantation in two-stage revision in hip as well as knee revisions. Centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (> 200 revisions/year), opted even more often for the 4–8 week period (92.3%). In two-stage revision the use of metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement as an interim placeholder was significantly reduced in 2020 compared to 2015. There was also a clear preference for cemented anchoring in two-stage revision arthroplasty in the knee in 2020, whereas the majority of hip replacements was cementless. Additionally, in 2020 the number of samples for microbiological testing during the removal of the infected endoprosthesis increased and 72% of the centres took five or more samples. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure expanded from 2015 to 2020. Conclusion While there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

• Publisher: BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Algorithms / Anchoring techniques / Antibiotics / Arthroplasty (hip) / Arthroplasty (knee) / Artificial joints / Care and treatment / Certification / Complications and side effects / Diagnosis / EndoCert / Epidemiology / Hip / Hip joint / Infection / Internal Medicine / International consensus conference / Joint diseases / Joint replacement / Joint surgery / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Musculoskeletal diseases / Orthopedics / Periprosthetic joint infection / Prostheses / Questionnaires / Rehabilitation / Revisions / Rheumatology / Risk factors / Sports Medicine / Statistical analysis / Surgery / Therapeutic algorithm / Transplants & implants