Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection.

PJI prosthesis exchange reverse shoulder arthroplasty revision surgery total shoulder arthroplasty

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 01 12 2020
revised: 30 12 2020
accepted: 04 01 2021
entrez: 13 1 2021
pubmed: 14 1 2021
medline: 14 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), "quick" Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed.
METHODS METHODS
Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), "quick" Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types.
RESULTS RESULTS
The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33435442
pii: jcm10020218
doi: 10.3390/jcm10020218
pmc: PMC7826686
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Oct;21(10):1304-9
pubmed: 22154310
Int Orthop. 2012 May;36(5):1011-7
pubmed: 22331125
JSES Int. 2020 Feb 21;4(2):366-371
pubmed: 32490428
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Apr 27;2(4):104-109
pubmed: 28507783
Open Orthop J. 2013 Jun 28;7:243-9
pubmed: 23919098
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Mar;90(3):336-42
pubmed: 18310757
JB JS Open Access. 2017 Jul 28;2(3):e0015
pubmed: 30229222
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4582756
pubmed: 29423407
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Jan;(382):206-16
pubmed: 11153989
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jun;477(6):1358-1369
pubmed: 31136435
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Apr;90(4):460-5
pubmed: 18378920
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):549-53
pubmed: 16979048
Hip Pelvis. 2018 Sep;30(3):138-146
pubmed: 30202747
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Nov 2;93(21):2001-9
pubmed: 22048095
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jul;35(7):1906-1911.e5
pubmed: 32229149
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Feb 01;17:52
pubmed: 26832360
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Feb;29(2):381-391
pubmed: 31495706
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1534-41
pubmed: 22516570
JSES Open Access. 2017 Apr 19;1(1):15-18
pubmed: 30675533
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Oct;21(10):1310-5
pubmed: 22104127
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jan;86(1):65-9
pubmed: 14765868
JSES Int. 2020 Jan 03;4(1):156-168
pubmed: 32195479
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2538-43
pubmed: 21359591
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Aug;25(8):1337-45
pubmed: 27012542
Shoulder Elbow. 2019 Jun;11(3):167-181
pubmed: 31210788
Int Orthop. 2011 Mar;35(3):365-73
pubmed: 20405287
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 May;87(5):1038-46
pubmed: 15866967
Infection. 2004 Aug;32(4):222-8
pubmed: 15293078
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Sep;89(9):1184-7
pubmed: 17905955
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 18;9(1):232
pubmed: 30659227
Acta Orthop. 2017 Dec;88(6):592-599
pubmed: 28880117
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):130-5
pubmed: 11988723
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Jun;123(5):209-14
pubmed: 12720010
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jun;87(6):814-8
pubmed: 15911665

Auteurs

Sebastian Klingebiel (S)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Christoph Theil (C)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Georg Gosheger (G)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Kristian Nikolaus Schneider (KN)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Thomas Ackmann (T)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Maximilian Timme (M)

Institute for Legal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Dominik Schorn (D)

Department for Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Paracelsus Clinic Bremen, 28329 Bremen, Germany.

Dennis Liem (D)

Sporthopaedicum Berlin, 10627 Berlin, Germany.

Carolin Rickert (C)

Department of Orthopaedics and Tumororthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Classifications MeSH