One-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of periprosthetic joint infection was introduced at our institution. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors of failure after periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty treated with 1-stage exchange.
Ninety-one patients who underwent failed treatment following 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty due to periprosthetic joint infection from January 2008 to December 2017 were included. From the same period, we randomly selected a 1:1 matched control group without a subsequent revision surgical procedure. Bivariate analyses, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors, as well as logistic regression, were performed to identify risk factors for failure.
Bivariate analysis yielded 10 predictors (variables with significance at p < 0.05) for failure involving re-revision for any reason and 11 predictors for failure involving re-revision for reinfection. The binary logistic regression model revealed the following risk factors for re-revision for any reason: history of a 1-stage exchange for infection (odds ratio [OR], 26.706 [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.770 to 123.606]; p < 0.001), history of a 2-stage exchange (OR, 3.948 [95% CI, 1.869 to 8.339]; p < 0.001), and isolation of enterococci (OR, 16.925 [95% CI, 2.033 to 140.872]; p = 0.009). The risk factors for reinfection in the binary logistic regression analysis were history of 1-stage or 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, isolation of enterococci, and isolation of streptococci (OR, 6.025 [95% CI, 1.470 to 24.701]; p = 0.013).
We identified several risk factors of failure after 1-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection, most of which were not related to the patient comorbidities. Among them, previous exchange due to periprosthetic joint infection and the isolation of Enterococcus or Streptococcus species were associated with a higher risk of failure. Besides a multidisciplinary approach, being aware of the identified risk factors when evaluating patients with periprosthetic joint infection could lead to better outcomes.
Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
2Department of Surgery, Ruhr-University Hospital, Bochum, Germany
3Department of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, München, Germany
E-mail address for M. Citak: firstname.lastname@example.org
*Mustafa Citak, MD, PhD, and Jasmin Friedenstab contributed equally to the writing of this article.
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Disclosure: There was no source of external funding for this study. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/F275).