English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. Materials and methods We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22–51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. Results 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64–89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18–57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3,  p  = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients ( p  = 0.026, Fisher’s exact test) and diabetics ( p  &lt; 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. Conclusion The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?