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

THE USE OF MASSIVE PROSTHESES IN PERIPROSTHETIC INFECTIONS: ONE-STAGE AND TWO-STAGE EXPERIENCE OF 33 PATIENTS

European Bone And Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 34th Annual Meeting: PART 2



Abstract

To evaluate the value of the use of massive prostheses in periprosthetic infections both in one stage and two stages procedures

Between 2008 and 2014, 236 revisions for PJI had been performed in our hospital by the same surgeon. For the most complex cases, we decided to introduce megaprostheses in our practice in 2011.

We report a prospective series of 33 infected patients treated between 2011 and the end of 2014, 14 male and 19 female with on average 67.9 years old (38–85) Infection involved TKA in 22 cases (17 TKA revisions, 4 primary TKA), THA in 9 cases (6 revisions, 3 primary THA), a femoral pseudo-arthrosis with posttraumatic gonarthrosis in one case and a septic humeral pseudoarthrosis in one case. We used a total femoral component for two patients: the first one for a hip PJI with extended diaphyseal bone loss and multiples sinus tracks, and the second one for a massive infected knee prosthesis used in a knee reconstruction for liposarcoma.

We used one stage procedures in 20 cases (8 hips, 12 knees, 1 shoulder) and two stages in 13 cases (12 knees and 1 hip). Additional technics included 3 massive extensor system allografts, two local flaps. Perioperative hyperbaric treatment was used for 2 patients.

The average follow up is 19.8 months (6–48 months). The most frequent complications were wound swelling and delayed healing in 8 cases;). In 3 cases of one stage surgery a complementary debridement was necessary in the three weeks after the surgery with always a good local and infectious evolution. VAC therapy was used in four cases with good results. We report one early postoperative dead.

In summary, the use of massive prostheses in PJI is a good option for complex cases. It can be a good alternative to knee arthrodesis. These components must be used preferentially for older patients, in cases of extreme bone loss or extensive osteomyelitis to secure the bone debridement and the quality of the reconstruction.

In our series, the one stage procedure is a validated option even by using complementary technics as bone allografts, extensor system allografts or flaps. We believe the two stages surgery is a secondary option, particularly when soft tissues status is compromised before or after the debridement, and mostly for the knees. The longevity of the implantation must be evaluate by a long term follow up.


E-mail: