Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2012; 150(04): 415-419
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1314956
Varia
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Diagnostik und Therapie periprothetischer Gelenkinfektionen in Deutschland – Eine Umfrage an 450 Kliniken und Vergleich mit der aktuellen Literatur

Diagnostics and Therapy for Periprosthetic Joint infection in Germany – A Survey of 450 Hospitals and a Comparison with the Literature
S. Höll
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
,
B. Rieckesmann
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
,
G. Gosheger
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
,
K. Daniilidis
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
,
R. Dieckmann
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
,
D. Schulz
1   Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie und Tumororthopädie, Universitätsklinik Münster
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 August 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Diagnostik und Therapie der periprothetischen Gelenkinfektion stellt den behandelnden Arzt vor eine schwierige Aufgabe. Aus der umfassenden Literatur lassen sich Algorithmen zur Diagnostik und Therapie erstellen. Ziel der Arbeit war es, in einer repräsentativen Umfrage die aktuellen Konzepte in den alten Bundesländern zu erfassen und mit der aktuellen Literatur zu vergleichen. 2011 wurden orthopädische und unfallchirurgische Kliniken in den alten Bundesländern zum Thema Diagnostik und Therapie des periprothetischen Infekts anonym befragt. 450 Fragebögen konnten ausgewertet werden. Septische Hüftprotheseneingriffe wurden im Durchschnitt 12 (± 20)/Jahr, septische Knieprotheseneingriffe wurden im Durchschnitt 9 (± 17)/Jahr durchgeführt. Im Mittel wurden 205 (± 178) primäre Hüft- und 167 (± 155) primäre Knieendoprothesen im Jahr implantiert. Die Auswertung der erhobenen Parameter ist in 3 Tabellen zusammengefasst. Im Bereich der Diagnostik werden einzelne Parameter wie z. B. das CRP bestimmt, die Interpretation weicht jedoch in über 50 % der Kliniken von der relevanten Literatur ab. Einige wichtige diagnostische Parameter werden nicht genutzt. In der Therapie besteht weitestgehend Übereinstimmung mit der Literatur. Die in einem nicht unerheblichen Maße angewandte V. A. C.-Therapie (ca. 30 % der Kliniken) ist lediglich im Frühinfekt beschrieben. Aber auch zur Anwendung im Frühinfekt liegen nur sehr wenige Daten vor. Ein einheitlicher Algorithmus zur Diagnostik wäre wünschenswert.

Abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections is a difficult situation for the attending physician. From the extensive literature, algorithms for diagnosis and therapy can be created. The aim of this study was to collect a representative survey of current concepts in the Federal States of the former West Germany and to compare them with those in the current literature. In 2011 orthopaedic and trauma clinics were surveyed anonymously in western Germany about diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infections. 450 questionnaires could be evaluated. Septic hip arthroplasty revisions were performed on average 12 (± 20)/year, septic knee arthroplasty revisions were performed on average 9 (± 17)/year. On average 205 (± 178) primary hip and 167 (± 155) primary knee arthroplasties were implanted/year. The analysis of the collected parameters is summarised in three tables. In the field of diagnostics, parameters such as CRP are determined. The interpretation, however, differs in more than 50 % of the hospitals on the relevant literature. Some important diagnostic parameters are not used. Therapy concepts are largely consistent with the literature. To a non-negligible extent, the vacuum-assisted therapy (approximately 30 % of hospitals) is used. In the literature it is described only for early infection. But even for use in early infection, there are very few data available. A unified diagnostic algorithm would be desirable.

Schlüsselwörter

periprothetische Gelenkinfektion - septische Hüftprotheseneingriffe - septische Knieprotheseneingriffe - V. A. C.-Therapie - Diagnostik - Therapie

Key words

periprosthetic infection - revision hip arthroplasty - revision knee arthroplasty - vacuum-assisted therapy - diagnostics - therapy
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 111-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hanssen AD. Managing the infected knee: as good as it gets. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (04) (Suppl. 01) 98-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Della Valle CJ, Zuckerman JD, Di Cesare PE. Periprosthetic sepsis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 26-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RS et al. Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2008; 90: 1637-1643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fink B, Makowiak C, Fuerst M et al. The value of synovial biopsy, joint aspiration and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of late peri-prosthetic infection of total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2008; 90: 874-878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2992-2994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Austin MS, Ghanem E, Joshi A et al. A simple, cost-effective screening protocol to rule out periprosthetic infection. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 65-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Garbuz DS et al. Use of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level to diagnose infection before revision total knee arthroplasty. A prospective evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2007; 89: 1409-1416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, OʼConnell J et al. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1999; 81: 672-683
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Buttaro MA, Tanoira I, Comba F et al. Combining C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 may be useful to detect periprosthetic hip infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 3263-3267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bottner F, Wegner A, Winkelmann W et al. Interleukin-6, procalcitonin and TNF-alpha: markers of peri-prosthetic infection following total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007; 89: 94-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Di Cesare PE, Chang E, Preston CF et al. Serum interleukin-6 as a marker of periprosthetic infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2005; 87: 1921-1927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Trampuz A, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR et al. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am J Med 2004; 117: 556-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Jacobs JJ et al. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) (Suppl. 02) 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jacovides CL, Parvizi J, Adeli B et al. Molecular markers for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (Suppl. 06) 99-103 e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schäfer P, Fink B, Sandow D et al. Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47: 1403-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Virolainen P, Lahteenmaki H, Hiltunen A et al. The reliability of diagnosis of infection during revision arthroplasties. Scand J Surg 2002; 91: 178-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zimmerli W, Moser C. Pathogenesis and treatment concepts of orthopaedic biofilm infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00938.x.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1645-1654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Koyonos L, Zmistowski B, Della Valle CJ et al. Infection control rate of irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 3043-3048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hartman MB, Fehring TK, Jordan L et al. Periprosthetic knee sepsis. The role of irrigation and debridement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 273: 113-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Teeny SM, Dorr L, Murata G et al. Treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. Irrigation and debridement versus two-stage reimplantation. J Arthroplasty 1990; 5: 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Steinbrink K, Frommelt L. [Treatment of periprosthetic infection of the hip using one-stage exchange surgery]. Orthopade 1995; 24: 335-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wroblewski BM. One-stage revision of infected cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 211: 103-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Burnett RS, Kelly MA, Hanssen AD et al. Technique and timing of two-stage exchange for infection in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464: 164-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Garvin KL, Evans BG, Salvati EA et al. Palacos gentamicin for the treatment of deep periprosthetic hip infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 298: 97-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lieberman JR, Callaway GH, Salvati EA et al. Treatment of the infected total hip arthroplasty with a two-stage reimplantation protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 301: 205-212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Park SJ, Song EK, Seon JK et al. Comparison of static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2010; 34: 1181-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Villanueva-Martinez M, Rios-Luna A, Pereiro J et al. Hand-made articulating spacers in two-stage revision for infected total knee arthroplasty: good outcome in 30 patients. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 674-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fink B, Rechtenbach A, Buchner H et al. Articulating spacers used in two-stage revision of infected hip and knee prostheses abrade with time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1095-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bernard L, Legout L, Zürcher-Pfund L et al. Six weeks of antibiotic treatment is sufficient following surgery for septic arthroplasty. J Infect 2010; 61: 125-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Frommelt L. [Diagnosis and treatment of foreign-body-associated infection in orthopaedic surgery]. Orthopade 2009;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lehner B, Bernd L. [V.A.C.-instill therapy in periprosthetic infection of hip and knee arthroplasty]. Zentralbl Chir 2006; 131 (Suppl. 01) S160-S164
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kelm J, Schmitt E, Anagnostakos K. Vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of early hip joint infections. Int J Med Sci 2009; 6: 241-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kelm J, Schmitt E, Anagnostakos K. [V.A.C.-therapy: a treatment option for wound healing complications after achilles tendon reconstruction]. Zentralbl Chir 2006; 131 (Suppl. 01) S96-S99
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lüdemann M, Haid S, Wulker N et al. [Results of vacuum sealing therapy in joint infections]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006; 144: 602-608
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar