Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ11- HN Chấn thương Chỉnh hình-TPHCM 02/12/2024

14. SOME EXPERIENCES WITH TWO-STAGE ARTHROPLASTY IN PATIENTS WITH JOINT-DESTROYING INFECTION

Tran Nhu Buu Hoa1,2, Nguyen Ke Lac1,2, Dong Trong Tan1,2
1 Quy Hoa Central Dermatology Hospital, Facility 2
2 Bệnh viện Da Liễu Trung ương Quy Hòa cơ sở 2
Corresponding author: drbuuhoatran@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD11.1749
14 Views
11 Downloads
Keywords
Two-stage arthroplasty surgery Joint-Destroying Infection (JDI) Revision - Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) Revision- Aseptic (RA), Septic Arthritis (SA)
Abstract

Purpose: Joint-Destroying Infection (JDI) is a severe stage of Septic Arthritis (SA), due to many causes such as primary joint infection, after joint surgery...The patient eventually becomes disabled because of rapid cartilage destruction due to infection, joint adhesion fusion, loss of function, pain and persistent pus leakage. This is a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Two-stage arthroplasty has become the gold standard in the surgical treatment of patients with infectious joint destruction. This study, through surgery on 24 patients with joint destruction infections, aims to: - Describe the clinical characteristics and causes of joint destruction leading to the decision to have a 2-stage joint replacement - Evaluate preliminary results, state some initial experiences in surgery for this complex lesion.
Materials and methods: Prospective study, 24 cases of joint destruction infection indicated for 2-stage arthroplasty, at Quy Hoa Hospital, conducted from 2017 to 2023. Indications for surgery are based on disease selection, determining the cause of infectious joint destruction according to clinical, X-ray (and MRI), purulent fluid culture, blood biochemical test and cell cultures. Results were evaluated according to Modified Harris Hip Score standards for hip joint, Knee Function Score for knee joint and the improvement infection. The earliest follow-up period is 1 year, the longest is 6 years. Process data according to SPSS 20.0.
Result: 24 patients (13 hips and 11 knees) with infected joint destruction underwent 2-stage surgery. The average follow-up time was 32.2 months. After surgery, both clinical and functional outcomes were significantly improved. The overall success rate of the two-stage technique is 87.5%. There were no serious complications or deaths during or after the 2-stage surgery. The most commonly identified pathogen is staphylococcus and most cultures do not grow bacteria. The cause of joint infection is often complications after surgery (osteosynthesis, joint replacement, arthroscopy): 62,5% or corticosteroid injections.
Conclude: Two-stage arthroplasty surgery for patients with infected joint destruction is a difficult, heavy surgery that requires patience and is unlikely to be successful. The above results have contributed to proving that this is an effective method to treat irreversible joint destruction due to infection, improve joint function, ultimately improve the patient's quality of life.

References
[1]
Aslam S., Reitman C., Darouiche R.O. Risk Google Scholar
[2]
factors for subsequent diagnosis of prosthetic Google Scholar
[3]
joint infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Google Scholar
[4]
;31(3):298. Google Scholar
[5]
Culliford D, Maskell J. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results Google Scholar
[6]
from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015; 23:594–600. Google Scholar
[7]
Chen C.E., Wang J.W., Juhn R.J. Total hip arthroplasty for primary septic arthritis of the hip Google Scholar
[8]
in adults. Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):573. Google Scholar
[9]
Diwanji S.R., Kong I.K., Park Y.H., Cho S.G., Google Scholar
[10]
Song E.K., Yoon T.R. Two-stage reconstruction of infected hip joints. J Arthroplasty. Google Scholar
[11]
;23(5):656. Google Scholar
[12]
Fleck E.E., Spangehl M.J. An articulating antibiotic spacer controls infection and improves pain Google Scholar
[13]
and function in a degenerative septic hip. Clin Google Scholar
[14]
Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):3055. Google Scholar
[15]
Donatto K.C. Orthopedic management of Google Scholar
[16]
septic arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. Google Scholar
[17]
;24(2):275. Google Scholar
[18]
Ford A.N., Holzmeister A.M., Rees H.W., Belich Google Scholar
[19]
P.D. Characterization of outcomes of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7S): Google Scholar
[20]
S224. Google Scholar
[21]
Jupiter J.B., Karchmer A.W., Lowell J.D., Harris W.H. Total hip arthroplasty in the treatment Google Scholar
[22]
of adult hips with current or quiescent sepsis. J Google Scholar
[23]
Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(2):194. Google Scholar
[24]
Kennedy N., Chambers S.T., Nolan I. Native joint Google Scholar
[25]
septic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, Google Scholar
[26]
and microbiological causes in a New Zealand Google Scholar
[27]
population. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(12):2392. Google Scholar
[28]
Kapadia BH, Berg RA, Daley JA, Fritz J, Bhave Google Scholar
[29]
A, Mont MA. Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet. 2016; 387:386–394. Google Scholar
[30]
Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW, Beswick AD, Inform Team Re-infection outcomes Google Scholar
[31]
following one- and two-stage surgical revision of Google Scholar
[32]
infected hip prosthesis: a systematic review and Google Scholar
[33]
meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10: e 0139166. Google Scholar
[34]
Kong L, Cao J, Zhang Y, Ding W, Shen Y. Risk Google Scholar
[35]
factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Wound J. 2017;14: 529–536. Google Scholar
[36]
Lenguerrand E, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD, Google Scholar
[37]
Jones SA, Porter ML, Blom AW. Revision for Google Scholar
[38]
prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res. 2017; 6:391–398. Google Scholar
[39]
Matthews PC, Berendt AR, McNally MA, Byren Google Scholar
[40]
I. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint Google Scholar
[41]
infection. BMJ. 2009; 338: b1773. Google Scholar
[42]
Weston V.C., Jones A.C., Bradbury N., Fawthrop Google Scholar
[43]
F., Doherty M. Clinical features and outcome of Google Scholar
[44]
septic arthritis in a single UK Health District Google Scholar
[45]
-1991. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58(4):214. Google Scholar
[46]
Mortazavi S.M., Vegari D., Ho A., Zmistowski B., Parvizi J. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: Google Scholar
[47]
predictors of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Google Scholar
[48]
;469(11):3049. Google Scholar
[49]
Moore AJ, Blom AW, Gooberman-Hill R. Deep Google Scholar
[50]
prosthetic joint infection: a qualitative study of Google Scholar
[51]
the impact on patients and their experiences of Google Scholar
[52]
revision surgery. BMJ Open. 2015; 009495. Google Scholar
[53]
Nagra N.S., Hamilton T.W., Ganatra S., Murray D.W., Pandit H. One-stage versus two-stage Google Scholar
[54]
exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee Google Scholar
[55]
arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Google Scholar
[56]
Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(10):3106. Google Scholar
[57]
Parvizi J, Fassihi SC, Enayatollahi MA. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection following hip Google Scholar
[58]
and knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. Google Scholar
[59]
; 47:505–515. Google Scholar
[60]
Papanna M.C., Chebbout R., Buckley S., Stockley I., Hamer A. Infection and failure rates following total hip arthroplasty for septic arthritis: Google Scholar
[61]
a case-controlled study. Hip Int. 2018;28(1):63. Google Scholar
[62]
Ross J.J. Septic arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Google Scholar
[63]
Am. 2005;19(4):799. Google Scholar
[64]
Rafiq I, Gambhir AK, Wroblewski BM, Kay PR. Google Scholar
[65]
The microbiology of infected hip arthroplasty. Google Scholar
[66]
Int Orthop. 2006; 30:532–535. Google Scholar
[67]
Sharff K.A., Richards E.P., Townes J.M. Clinical Google Scholar
[68]
management of septic arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Google Scholar
[69]
Rep. 2013;15(6):332. Google Scholar
[70]
Shaikh A.A., Ha C.W, Park Y.B. Two-stage Google Scholar
[71]
approach to primary TKA in infected arthritic knees using intraoperatively molded articulating cement spacers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Google Scholar
[72]
;472(7):2201. Google Scholar
[73]
Tande A.J., Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Google Scholar
[74]
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27(2):302. Google Scholar