Open AccessRevision TKA with a distal femoral replacement is at high risk of reinfection after two‐stage exchange for periprosthetic knee joint infection
Author(s) -
Theil Christoph,
Schneider Kristian Nikolaus,
Gosheger Georg,
SchmidtBraekling Tom,
Ackmann Thomas,
Dieckmann Ralf,
Frommer Adrien,
Klingebiel Sebastian,
Schwarze Jan,
Moellenbeck Burkhard
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.806
H-Index - 125
eISSN - 1433-7347
pISSN - 0942-2056
DOI - 10.1007/s00167-021-06474-2
Subject(s) - medicine , periprosthetic , interquartile range , surgery , confidence interval , proportional hazards model , retrospective cohort study , arthroplasty , stage (stratigraphy) , amputation , paleontology , biology
Purpose Megaprosthetic distal femoral reconstruction (DFR) is a limb‐salvage procedure to address bone loss following two‐stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the survival of DFR compared to hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that DFR was associated with a poorer survival. Methods In this retrospective single‐center study, 97 subjects who underwent two‐stage revision of chronic knee PJI were included. Among these, 41 were DFR. The diagnosis of PJI was established using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Implant survival was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log‐rank test as well as multivariate Cox regression at a minimum follow‐up period of 24 months. Results The median follow‐up period was 59 (interquartile range (IQR) 45–78) months. Overall, 24% (23/97) of patients required revision surgery for infection. The infection‐free survival of rotating hinge revision TKA was 93% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 86–100%) at five years compared to 50% (95% CI 34–66%) for DFR. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for reinfection were DFR reconstruction (HR 4.7 (95% CI 1–22), p = 0.048), length of megaprosthesis (HR 1.006 (95% CI 1.001–1.012), p = 0.032) and higher BMI (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.018–1.116), p = 0.007). 10% (4/41) of patients undergoing DFR underwent amputation to treat recurrent infection. Conclusion Megaprosthetic DFR as part of a two‐stage exchange for PJI is a salvage treatment that has a high risk for reinfection compared to non‐megaprosthetic TKA. Patients must therefore be counseled accordingly. Level of evidence Retrospective observational study, Level IV.