McQuivey Kade S, Bingham Joshua, Chung Andrew, Clarke Henry, Schwartz Adam, Pollock Jordan R, Beauchamp Christopher, Spangehl Mark J
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2021 Feb 4;11(1). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00071. eCollection 2021 Jan-Mar.
Debridement and implant retention (DAIR) has variable success as a treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with generally poor outcomes reported in the literature. Because of the unacceptably high failure rate of DAIR, we implemented a 2-stage debridement protocol that includes the use of high-dose antibiotic beads between stages for the treatment of acute PJI. In 2 previous studies, with an average follow-up of 3.5 years in each study, we reported overall infection-control rates of 87% and 90%.
Following exposure of the joint, cultures are obtained, and all modular components are removed, scrubbed, and soaked in an antiseptic solution. A thorough irrigation and debridement with complete synovectomy is performed, followed by temporary reinsertion of the original modular parts. High-dose antibiotic cement beads are inserted into the joint, and the joint is closed. Approximately 5 to 6 days later, a second debridement is performed, the beads are removed, and the new modular, sterile components are implanted. The patient is placed on a course of intravenous and, later, oral antibiotics, in addition to a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol.
Long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy.One-stage DAIR.One-stage exchange arthroplasty.Two-stage exchange arthroplasty.Resection arthroplasty.Amputation.
The treatment of acute PJI has historically consisted of a single irrigation and debridement, with exchange of modular parts and retention of the components, followed by intravenous antibiotic therapy. Despite having lower rates of patient morbidity compared with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, this more traditional procedure also has a higher rate of failure, with reported rates as high as 60% to 84%. The utility of component retention continues to be a topic of debate. Alternatives to component retention include both 1- and 2-stage exchange procedures. Although these modalities offer potentially higher rates of infection control, they are associated with substantial patient morbidity, particularly in patients with well-fixed implants. Furthermore, exchange procedures may result in substantial iatrogenic bone loss, which can be problematic in revision total joint arthroplasty procedures, in which bone stock may already be limited. The double-DAIR protocol offers infection-control rates that are comparable with those of component-exchange procedures, but with the lower patient morbidity associated with component-retention procedures. Furthermore, the double-DAIR procedure provides the added benefit of retaining important bone stock.
The success rate for the double-DAIR procedure has been reproducible, with infection-control rates of 87% and 90% reported in 2 studies from a single cohort at our institution. These rates represent a substantial improvement compared with a single irrigation and debridement, and are on par with those reported for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty procedures. The infection-control rates of the double-DAIR procedure did not significantly vary depending on whether infection occurred following a total knee or total hip arthroplasty. However, not surprisingly, patients who underwent debridement following a revision procedure had a lower rate of success (77.1% successful infection control) compared with patients debrided following a primary procedure (93.8% successful infection control). We could not demonstrate an association with organism and success or failure of treatment.Although not significant, there was a trend toward an association between the time from symptom onset to initial treatment and infection control (p = 0.07). Patients with successful infection control underwent the initial debridement an average of 6.2 days after symptom onset, compared with 10.7 days in patients in whom treatment had failed. Several other studies have demonstrated that successful infection control is associated with earlier initial irrigation and debridement. We strongly support that, in the setting of confirmed acute PJI, prompt initiation of treatment optimizes the chances for successful infection control.
Thorough debridement is key to successful infection control of infection.Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe, and we recommend its use.Extended oral antibiotics following debridement with component retention can increase infection-free survivorship.
清创及植入物保留术(DAIR)作为急性人工关节周围感染(PJI)的一种治疗方法,成功率不一,文献报道的总体疗效通常较差。由于DAIR的失败率高得令人难以接受,我们实施了一种两阶段清创方案,该方案包括在两个阶段之间使用高剂量抗生素珠来治疗急性PJI。在之前的两项研究中,每项研究的平均随访时间为3.5年,我们报告的总体感染控制率分别为87%和90%。
暴露关节后,获取培养物,取出所有模块化部件,进行擦洗,并浸泡在防腐溶液中。进行彻底冲洗和清创,并完全切除滑膜,随后临时重新插入原始模块化部件。将高剂量抗生素骨水泥珠插入关节,然后关闭关节。大约5至6天后,进行第二次清创,取出珠子,植入新的模块化无菌部件。除了标准的术后康复方案外,患者还要接受静脉抗生素治疗,之后改为口服抗生素治疗。
长期抑制性抗生素治疗。单阶段DAIR。单阶段关节置换术。两阶段关节置换术。切除性关节成形术。截肢术。
急性PJI的治疗历来包括单次冲洗和清创,更换模块化部件并保留植入物,随后进行静脉抗生素治疗。尽管与两阶段关节置换术相比,这种更传统的手术患者发病率较低,但失败率也更高,报道的失败率高达60%至84%。保留植入物的效用仍是一个有争议的话题。保留植入物的替代方案包括单阶段和两阶段置换手术。尽管这些方法可能提供更高的感染控制率,但它们与相当高的患者发病率相关,特别是在植入物固定良好的患者中。此外,置换手术可能导致大量医源性骨丢失,这在翻修全关节置换手术中可能会成为问题,因为此时骨量可能已经有限。双DAIR方案提供的感染控制率与部件置换手术相当,但患者发病率低于保留部件的手术。此外,双DAIR手术还有保留重要骨量的额外益处。
双DAIR手术的成功率具有可重复性,在我们机构的同一队列的两项研究中,报告的感染控制率分别为87%和90%。与单次冲洗和清创相比,这些比率有了显著提高,与两阶段关节置换手术报告的比率相当。双DAIR手术的感染控制率并不因感染发生在全膝关节置换术还是全髋关节置换术后而有显著差异。然而,不出所料,与初次手术后清创的患者(感染控制成功率为93.8%)相比,翻修手术后清创的患者成功率较低(感染控制成功率为77.1%)。我们未能证明微生物与治疗成功或失败之间存在关联。虽然不显著,但从症状出现到初始治疗的时间与感染控制之间存在关联趋势(p = 0.07)。感染控制成功的患者在症状出现后平均6.2天接受初次清创,而治疗失败的患者为10.7天。其他几项研究表明,成功的感染控制与更早的初次冲洗和清创有关。我们强烈支持,在确诊急性PJI的情况下,及时开始治疗可优化成功控制感染的机会。
彻底清创是成功控制感染的关键。含抗生素的骨水泥已多次被证明是安全的,我们建议使用。清创后保留部件并延长口服抗生素治疗可提高无感染生存率。