Evaluation of The Standard Procedure For Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison of The 2015 and 2020 Census in Total Joint Replacement Centres in Germany

Abstract

Background Since there are no national or international algorithms there are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Therefore, the present paper evaluates the respective protocols from different centres on the basis of an EndoCert questionnaire to treat PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ).Materials and methodsA questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the principles to treat septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ including questions on various treatment options: prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and sampling prior to reimplantation. All certified EPZ were included (n = 504). The results of the current survey 2020 were compared to those of a previous analysis.ResultsThe number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery has clearly decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option has increased (hip: +6.3%; knee: +6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4-8 week period as the interval between prosthesis removal and reimplantation for two-stage replacement for both, hip and knee revisions. Amongst centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (>200 revisions/year), there were even more that opted for the 4-8 week period (92.3%). The Girdlestone situation, but also metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement, are less frequently used. When exchanging knee replacements, there was a clear trend towards cemented anchoring, whereas cementless anchorage was preferred for hip replacements. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure continues to increase. In addition, more samples for microbiological testing are taken when removing the endoprosthesis, 72% of the centres take 5 or more samples.ConclusionWhile there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

EndoProthetikZentrum

“…2021 untersuchten Osmanski-Zenk et al 42 die Standardprozedur für die Behandlung periprothetischer Infektionen am Knie und an der Hüfte im Vergleich von 2015 und 2020 an insgesamt 504 Endoprothesenzentren in Deutschland. Sie stellten fest, dass trotz partieller Anpassung der Vorgehensweisen in zertifizierten Endoprothesenzentren Unterschiede in Abhängigkeit von der Anzahl von Revisionen bestanden, und dass die Behandlung letztendlich häufig eine individuelle Entscheidung blieb.…”