RESULTS OF DEEP INFECTION AFTER REVERSE SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract

The objective of this study is to report the epidemiology and results of treatment of deep infection after a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

This is a multicenter retrospective study involving 457 reverse prostheses performed between 1992 and 2002. Fifteen patients (3%) (mean age 71 ± 9 years) presented with a deep infection. Eight were primary arthroplasties and seven were revision procedures. There were five associated peri-operative fractures and three early postoperative complications requiring surgical treatment. Infection was treated by debridement (n=4), prosthetic resection (n=10) or two-stage revision (n=1).

The infection rate was 2% (8/363) for a primary reverse arthroplasty and 7% (7/94) for revisions. The infection was diagnosed at a mean of seventeen months (range, one to fifty-seven) post-operatively, corresponding to two acute, five sub-acute and eight chronic infections. The most common pathogen was P. acnes in six cases (40%). At a mean follow-up of thirty-four ± nineteen months, there were twelve remissions (80%) and three recurrent infections. The two acute infections (one debridement and one resection) and the eight chronic infections (seven resections and one two-stage revision) were in remission. Among the five sub-acute infections, the two resections were in remission, whereas the three debridements recurred. Overall, the ten resections were in remission with seven patients disappointed and three satisfied, a mean Constant score of thirty-one ± eight points and a mean active anterior elevation of 53 ± 15°. The two-stage exchange was in remission but remained disappointed with a Constant score of twenty-seven points and an active anterior elevation of 90°.

Infection compromises the functional results of the reverse prosthesis whatever the treatment performed. Acute infections appear to be satisfactorily treated by debridement or resection. Both resection and two-stage revision can successfully treat sub-acute and chronic infection; however, debridement alone is ineffective and not recommended. There is a high rate of infection when the reverse prosthesis is used in revision arthroplasty. Prevention, by looking for such infection before surgery and by performing a two-stage procedure is recommended in the case of any uncertainty.