Similar Outcomes of Two-Stage Revisions for Infection and One-Stage Revisions for Aseptic Revisions of Knee Endoprostheses

Abstract

Two-stage revision knee arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the most widely performed procedure for infected knee arthroplasties. The clinical outcome of this type of surgery compared with aseptic joint revision with exchange of tibial and femoral components is still controversial. Therefore, we analyzed clinical outcomes of septic two-stage revisions compared with aseptic one-stage revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). In a retrospective study, we assessed 135 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision for septic TKA (52 patients) and one-stage aseptic total knee revision arthroplasty (83 patients). The average follow-up was 26.1 months for the aseptic group and 26.5 months for the septic group. For clinical evaluation, we used the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Kujala score, Turba score, and the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Postoperative pain level was determined using the visual analog pain scale. The surgeries were performed 51 months (aseptic group) and 24 months (septic group) after primary TKA on average. The main indications for aseptic revision surgeries were instability (40%), aseptic loosening (22.4%), anterior knee pain due to pathologies of the patella (11.8%), or material wear (5.9%). In the clinical outcome, patients achieved 124.8 points in the aseptic group and 105.4 points in the septic group in the Knee Society Score. The Oxford Knee Score revealed 29.9 points for the aseptic group and 33.9 points for the septic group. For the Kujala score, we found 53.2 points in the aseptic group and 48.5 points in the septic group. For the Turba score, we found 8.4 points in the aseptic group and 10.8 points in the septic group. The SF-36 (psychical) showed 52.2 versus 49.5 points and the SF-36 (physical) showed 36.5 versus 35.4 points. Mean level of persisting pain on the visual analog scale was 3.0 (aseptic group) and 3.5 (septic group). Performing septic two-stage or aseptic one-stage tibial and femoral revision knee arthroplasty showed similar clinical outcomes in relation to objective and subjective outcome measures.

Keywords

knee revision arthroplasty - revision surgery - endoprosthesis

• References

• 1 Abdel MP, Ledford CK, Kobic A, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD. Contemporary failure aetiologies of the primary, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B [phone]
• 2 Poultsides LA, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Sakellariou VI, Memtsoudis SG, Sculco TP. Infection risk assessment in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018; 42 (01) 87-94
• 3 Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. ; INFORM Team. Patient-related risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11 (03) e0150866
• 4 Evans RP. Successful treatment of total hip and knee infection with articulating antibiotic components: a modified treatment method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (427) 37-46
• 5 Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (08) 990-993
• 6 Diamond OJ, Masri BA. Articulating antibiotic impregnated spacers in prosthetic joint infections: where do we stand?. Int J Surg 2018; 54 (Pt B): 345-350
• 7 Castellani L, Daneman N, Mubareka S, Jenkinson R. Factors associated with choice and success of one- versus two-stage revision arthroplasty for infected hip and knee prostheses. HSS J 2017; 13 (03) 224-231
• 8 Hoberg M, Konrads C, Engelien J. , et al. Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (03) 459-464
• 9 Lanting BA, Lau A, Teeter MG, Howard JL. Outcome following subluxation of mobile articulating spacers in two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (03) 375-380