Risk Factors Related to Poor Outcomes in the Treatment of Non-conventional Periprosthetic Infection^[*]

Abstract

Objectives To identify the main risk factors related to poor outcomes after the treatment for periprosthetic infection.

Materials and Methods Medical records from 109 patients who underwent non-conventional endoprosthesis surgeries (primary and revision procedures) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018, were retrospectively evaluated. In total, 15 patients diagnosed with periprosthetic infection were eligible to participate in the study. Variables including gender, age at diagnosis, affected bone, surgery duration, white blood cell (WBC) count before endoprosthesis placement, urinary tract infection during the first postoperative year, and time elapsed from endoprosthesis placement to infection diagnosis were related to outcomes using the Fisher exact test (for the bicategorical variables) or analysis of variance (ANOVA, for the tricategorical variables). The mean times from diagnosis to final outcome were compared using the Student t-test.

Results These risk factors did not show a statistically significant correlation with the outcomes. The data revealed a trend towards a difference between the mean time for the onset of infection and the final outcome. Due to the limited sample, we believe that studies with larger cohorts can prove this trend.

Conclusion We identified that the time from endoprosthesis placement to the onset of the symptoms of infection tends to be related to the outcome and evolution of the patient evolution during the treatment for periprosthetic infection. Although apparently correlated, other associated factors were not statistically linked to poor treatment outcomes.

Keywords

prosthesis and implants - sarcoma - infections - osteosarcoma - amputation - debridement

^* Study developed at Instituto de Oncologia Pediátrica, Grupo de Apoio ao Adolescente e à Criança com Câncer (IOP/GRAACC), and at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Department (DOT), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 08. Januar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. Oktober 2021

• Referências

• 1 Hardes J, Gebert C, Schwappach A. et al. Characteristics and outcome of infections associated with tumor endoprostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2006; 126 (05) 289-296
• 2 Torbert JT, Fox EJ, Hosalkar HS, Ogilvie CM, Lackman RD. Endoprosthetic reconstructions: results of long-term followup of 139 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 438 (438) 51-59
• 3 Morii T, Morioka H, Ueda T. et al. Deep infection in tumor endoprosthesis around the knee: a multi-institutional study by the Japanese musculoskeletal oncology group. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 51
• 4 Peel T, May D, Buising K, Thursky K, Slavin M, Choong P. Infective complications following tumour endoprosthesis surgery for bone and soft tissue tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40 (09) 1087-1094
• 5 Racano A, Pazionis T, Farrokhyar F, Deheshi B, Ghert M. High infection rate outcomes in long-bone tumor surgery with endoprosthetic reconstruction in adults: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (06) 2017-2027
• 6 Viola DCM, Cardozo Filho NS, Nunes RT. et al. O uso de espaçadores com antibiótico no tratamento das infecções em endopróteses de joelho. Acta Ortop Bras 2009; 17 (03) 144-148
• 7 Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (16) 1645-1654
• 8 Deva AK, Adams Jr WP, Vickery K. The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (05) 1319-1328
• 9 Dhanoa A, Ajit Singh V, Elbahri H. Deep Infections after Endoprosthetic Replacement Operations in Orthopedic Oncology Patients. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2015; 16 (03) 323-332
• 10 Allison D, Huang E, Ahlmann ER, Carney S, Wang L, Menendez LR. Peri-Prosthetic Infection in the Orthopedic Tumor Patient. JISRF Reconstr Rev 2014; 4 (03) 13-22
• 11 Nagaya LH, Salles MJC, Takikawa LSC. et al. Infections after shoulder arthroplasty are correlated with higher anesthetic risk score: a case-control study in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2017; 21 (06) 613-619
• 12 Wafa H, Grimer RJ, Reddy K. et al. Retrospective evaluation of the incidence of early periprosthetic infection with silver-treated endoprostheses in high-risk patients: case-control study. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B [phone]
• 13 Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014; 27 (02) 302-345
• 14 Zajonz D, Zieme A, Prietzel T. et al. Periprosthetic joint infections in modular endoprostheses of the lower extremities: a retrospective observational study in 101 patients. Patient Saf Surg 2016; 10: 6
• 15 Sigmund IK, Gamper J, Weber C. et al. Efficacy of different revision procedures for infected megaprostheses in musculoskeletal tumour surgery of the lower limb. PLoS One 2018; 13 (07) e0200304
• 16 Muratori F, Mondanelli N, Prifti X. et al. Total femur prosthesis in oncological and not oncological series. Survival and failures. J Orthop 2019; 17: 215-220
• 17 Prabowo Y, Steven P. Management of infected megaprosthesis with debridement and implant preservation using glutaraldehyde. J Indon Orthop Traumatol 2018; 1 (01) 33-39
• 18 Zuidhof RJ, Lowik C, Ploegmakers J, Wouthuyzen-Barkker M, Jutte P. Periprosthetic joint infection in orthopaedic surgical oncology. Ann Joint 2019; 4: 26-26
• 19 Niccoli G, Mercurio D, Cortese F. Bone scan in painful knee arthroplasty: obsolete or actual examination?. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2S): 68-77
• 20 Pilge H, Gradl G, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Gollwitzer H. Incidence and outcome after infection of megaprostheses. Hip Int 2012; 22 (Suppl. 08) S83-S90