header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

INFECTED TOTAL ELBOW ARTHROPLASTY: MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS. ABOUT 11 CASES

European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Nantes, France, September 2017



Abstract

Aim

Infections after total elbow arthroplasty are more frequent than after other joint arthroplasties. Therapeutic management varies depending of the patient status, the time of diagnosis of the infection, the status of the implant as well as the remaining bone stock around the implants.

Method

Between 1997 and 2017, 180 total elbow arthroplasties were performed in our department. Eleven (6%) sustained a deep infection and were revised. Infection occurred after prosthesis of first intention in 4 and after a revision procedure in 7. Etiologies were: rheumatoid arthritis in 6, trauma sequela in 4 and osteosarcoma in 1. There were 7 women and 4 men of 59 years on average (22–87). Delay between the prosthesis and the diagnosis of infection was 66 months (0.5–300). The infection was stated as acute (<3week) in one, subacute (between 3 week and 3 months) in 1, and chronic (>3 months) in 9. Isolated bacteria were: Staphylococcus (10), Streptococcus (1), P. acnes (1), and Proteus mirabilis (1). Infection were poly microbial in 2 cases. A simple lavage with debridement was performed in 3 cases (Group 1), a 2-stage revision in 4 (Group 2), and a definitive removal of the prosthesis in 4 (Group 3). Adapted antibiotics were prescribed for all patients during at least 6 weeks.

Results

All patients were reviewed with 59 months average follow-up. Eight patients were cured of their infection thanks to the initial therapeutic strategy. For 2 patients of Group 2, infection reccurrency required a new surgical procedure with one simple lavage/debridement for one, and 3 lavage/debridement for the other making it possible to cure the infection. For one patient of Group 1, a failure of lavage/debridement required removal of the implants. The MEPS reached 72 points: 67 points for patients of Group 1, 76 points for patients of Group 2, and 74 points for patients of Group 3. Complication rate was 36% (4): 2 ulnar nerve impairment with dysesthesia, one radial nerve palsy, and one humeral stem loosening.

Conclusions

An adapted therapeutic strategy can allow suppression of the responsible bacteria after infection of total elbow arthroplasty. Sometimes, several procedures are necessary to obtain the cure. Better functional results were obtained when the prosthesis could be retained or replaced, but satisfactory results could also be obtained after resection arthroplasty when the humeral columns have been preserved to stabilize the joint.


E-mail: