Unexpected positive cultures in revision total knee arthroplasty after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Periprosthetic joint infection
Revision total knee arthroplasty
Unexpected positive cultures
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2024
06 May 2024
Historique:
received:
15
01
2024
accepted:
28
04
2024
medline:
6
5
2024
pubmed:
6
5
2024
entrez:
6
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Unexpected positive cultures are defined as a single positive culture in intraoperative samples taken during revision surgery after prosthetic joint infection was preoperatively ruled out. This study aims to determine the prevalence of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). As a secondary objective, this study aims to compare the re-intervention rate in this specific group, between UPC and non-UPC patients. The hypothesis is that the UPC prevalence in patients who undergo a revision TKA after UKA is not higher than in other TKA revision cases and this does not increase the risk of re-intervention. This is a retrospective study where all patients who underwent a UKA revision from January 2016 to February 2023 in a high-volume arthroplasty centre, were analyzed. Unexpected positive culture prevalence in this group of patients was obtained. During the included period, 270 UKA revision surgeries were performed. Eight cases had at least two positive cultures and were therefore excluded. The final analysis included 262 patients. Of these, 8 (3.05%) patients presented UPCs and the isolated microorganisms were low-virulence organisms. None of the UPC patients received any treatment. No statistical differences were found between UPC and non-UPC groups in the analyzed variables. The prevalence of unexpected positive cultures in patients following revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is lower than in patients who undergo a revision of total knee arthroplasty. In UKA patients a UPC does not seem to increase the risk of a re-intervention, so it can be safely ignored if ICM criteria are not met.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38709260
doi: 10.1007/s00264-024-06203-7
pii: 10.1007/s00264-024-06203-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.
Références
The AJRR Annual Report [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 24]. Available from: https://www.aaos.org/registries/publications/ajrr-annual-report/
Yamagami R, Inui H, Jo T, Kawata M, Taketomi S, Kono K et al (2021) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with lower proportions of surgical site infection compared with total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective nationwide database study. Knee 28:124–130
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.11.017
pubmed: 33359944
Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 32(6):1792–1797
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.020
pubmed: 28215968
Kono K, Inui H, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, Taketomi S, Tanaka S (2020) Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty reproduces in vivo kinematics of normal knees to a lower extent than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 28(9):3007–3015
doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05754-2
Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Jt J 97-B(11):1493–500
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634
Labruyère C, Zeller V, Lhotellier L, Desplaces N, Léonard P, Mamoudy P et al (2015) Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 101(5):553–557
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.04.006
pubmed: 26164543
Citak M, Dersch K, Kamath AF, Haasper C, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2014) Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases. Int Orthop 38(5):961–965
doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2263-0
pubmed: 24402555
pmcid: 3997760
Citak M, Cross MB, Gehrke T, Dersch K, Kendoff D (2015) Modes of failure and revision of failed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 22(4):338–340
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.03.008
pubmed: 25887341
Vasso M, Corona K, D’Apolito R, Mazzitelli G, Panni AS (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: modes of failure and conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Joints 5(1):44–50
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1601414
pubmed: 29114630
pmcid: 5672863
Society of Unicondylar Research and Continuing Education (2012) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(8 Suppl):46–50
Lee CS, Su EP, Cross MB, Carli AV, Landy DC, Chalmers BP (2021) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infection compared to total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today 20(10):117–122
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.06.006
Hernandez NM, Petis SM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ, Abdel MP, Pagnano MW (2019) Infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a high risk of subsequent complications. Clin Orthop 477(1):70–77
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000372
pubmed: 30794230
Kocaoğlu H, Hennes F, Abdelaziz H, Neufeld ME, Gehrke T, Citak M (2023) Survival analysis of one-stage exchange of infected unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-center study with minimum 3 years follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 33(2):327–333
doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-03187-7
Chalmers BP, Kapadia M, Chiu YF, Henry MW, Miller AO, Carli AV (2020) Treatment and outcome of periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 35(7):1917–1923
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.036
pubmed: 32173618
Goh GS, Tarabichi S, Clarkson SJ, Zanna L, Citak M, Parvizi J (2022) Positive cultures can be safely ignored in revision arthroplasty patients that do not meet the 2018 international consensus meeting criteria. J Arthroplasty 37(11):2257–2261
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.015
pubmed: 35569707
Ribau A, Ekhtiari S, Budin M, Zanna L, Fatih Dasci M, Gehrke T et al (2023) Unexpected positive cultures in patients who have a history of septic revision in the same joint. J Arthroplasty S0883–5403(23):00209–00217
Kloos J, Vander Linden K, Vermote S, Berger P, Vandenneucker H (2022) Prevalence, interpretation, and management of unexpected positive cultures in revision TKA: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 30(12):3998–4009
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06856-6
Shohat N, Bauer T, Buttaro M, Budhiparama N, Cashman J, Della Valle CJ et al (2019) Hip and knee section, what is the definition of a Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) of the knee and the hip? Can the same criteria be used for both joints?: proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J Arthroplasty 34(2S):S325-7
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.045
pubmed: 30343971
Lara-Taranchenko Y, Moreira T, Sandiford NA, Guerra-Farfán E, Gehrke T, Citak M (2023) Unexpected positive cultures in patients with arthrofibrosis following total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop
Barrack RL, Aggarwal A, Burnett RSJ, Clohisy JC, Ghanem E, Sharkey P et al (2007) The fate of the unexpected positive intraoperative cultures after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(6 Suppl 2):94–99
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.029
pubmed: 17823025
Boyle KK, Wood S, Tarity TD (2018) Low-virulence organisms and periprosthetic joint infection—biofilm considerations of these organisms. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 11(3):409–419
doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9503-2
pubmed: 29961193
pmcid: 6105490