A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection
Authors: Dombrowski M. E. , Wilson A. E. , Wawrose R. A. , O’Malley M. J. , Urish K. L. , Klatt B. A. 
Published: April 2020

Abstract

Background
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a leading cause of revision arthroplasty. Considerable controversy still exists whether single- or two-stage exchange is the better approach for patients with chronic PJI. Historically, single-stage exchange arthroplasty was thought to have an unacceptably high risk of reinfection compared with two-stage exchange but recent studies have demonstrated that this may not be the case. To be considered for single-stage exchange, patients should meet certain criteria including a preoperatively identified nonvirulent pathogen in an immunocompetent host with an uncompromised soft tissue envelope. It is unclear what proportion of patients with chronic PJI actually meet these criteria. Additionally, patients who meet the criteria for single-stage exchange are selected because, in principle, they may be more likely to be able to overcome the infection, but it is unknown what the reinfection risk is in patients undergoing two-stage exchange who might have met selection criteria for single-stage exchange.

Questions/purposes
(1) What percentage of patients with chronic PJI treated at our institution met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange arthroplasty? (2) Is the risk of persistent or recurrent infection lower for patients treated with two-stage exchange who met International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange than it is among those who did not meet those inclusion criteria?

Methods
Between 2012 and 2016, one referral center treated 120 patients with chronic PJI as determined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. During this time, we used single-stage exchange only rarely in patients with chronic PJI (3%; four of 120), and only in oncologic patients with mega-prosthesis implants; 7% (eight of 120) underwent other procedures (resection arthroplasty or arthrodesis). Of the remaining 108, 16% (17) were lost to follow-up; the remaining 91 were evaluated in this retrospective study. To answer our first question, we applied the International Consensus Meeting indications for single-stage exchange, which were a known nonvirulent preoperative organism, an immunocompetent host, and a healthy soft-tissue envelope without a sinus tract; we then calculated the percentage of patients who would have met those criteria. To answer our second question, we compared those who would and would not have met those criteria in terms of the proportion who were determined to be infection-free at 2 years using the MSIS criteria.

Results
Only 19% (20 of 108) of patients met the International Consensus Meeting criteria for single-stage exchange. With the numbers available, there was no difference between those who met and did not meet those criteria in terms of the proportion of patients who had persistent or recurrent infection 2 years after treatment (three of 15 versus 32% [24 of 76]; p = 0.38).

Conclusions
We found that only a small proportion of patients who presented with chronic PJI to a referral center would have been suitable for single-stage direct exchange; with the numbers available, we found no difference in the reinfection risk after two-stage revision in those patients compared with those who would not have met those criteria. Consequently, it is possible that a small proportion of patients may benefit from single-stage exchange, but our small sample size may have missed important differences in reinfection risk, and so our findings on that question must be considered preliminary. Larger studies randomizing patients who meet single-stage criteria to either single- or two-stage exchange will better elucidate the true reinfection risk in this patient population.

Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study.