Abstract
Background and objective
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the dreaded complications in patients after arthroplasty surgeries, owing to the risk of morbidity and arduous investigations and management associated with it. Nevertheless, as Malaysia is currently battling against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic head-on, the treatment for other non-life-threatening diseases including PJI has taken a backseat. In this study, we present a case series of 11 patients with PJI who were managed surgically at the largest tertiary hospital in Malaysia and we hope to shed some light on the difficulties we have encountered during this trying period.
Patients and methods
Patients with PJIs who underwent surgical intervention during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021) were reviewed and included in this study. The demographic profile of the patients, presenting complaints, prosthesis topography, biochemical investigative findings, surgical interventions, and short-term outcomes were summarized.
Results
A total of 11 patients were treated surgically at Hospital Kuala Lumpur for PJI. Among them, five patients are still awaiting their second-stage surgeries despite the completion of their antibiotic regimes, and they are fit for the procedure.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the treatment of patients with PJI. In a setting with scarce resources, surgeons should strongly consider single-stage revision surgeries for the treatment of patients with PJI.
Keywords: periprosthetic joint infection, covid 19, implant failure, infection, revision surgery
Introduction
As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic sweeps through the whole world like a wildfire, crumbling most of the healthcare and other crucial sectors along the way, many countries are scrambling to manage and contain this debilitating disease [1-3]. As the healthcare system is stretched to the brink of collapse in many countries, the management of COVID-19 patients has taken precedence over other patients [1-3]. Elective surgical interventions have been postponed indefinitely, ranging from those for patients with cardiac diseases to patients with surgical illnesses [1-3]. While the administrators are justified in focusing on COVID-19 infections and associated mortality rates, the collateral damage of COVID-19 infection in the healthcare sector remains obscured to the public.
In Malaysia, elective surgeries such as joint replacement surgeries have been postponed throughout this pandemic period in many tertiary centers. Nevertheless, complications of joint replacement surgeries, such as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), are considered to be orthopaedic emergencies, which require urgent surgical intervention. In patients who undergo primary joint replacement, the infection rate in the first two years usually ranges from 0.5 to 2% and revision surgeries normally have higher rates of infection, ranging from 2.5 to 4% [4,5]. PJI is a devastating condition associated with a high rate of mortality, increased risk of morbidity, decreased quality of life, and potentially decreased level of mobility and ambulation [4,5]. Common risk factors for joint replacement surgery are postoperative surgical site infection, previous arthroplasty, advanced age, malnutrition, joint disease, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and remote infection [4-6]. Management of PJI can be done via single- or two-stage revision surgery, with each having its pros and cons [7,8]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgeons have to improvise and adjust accordingly, depending on the surge of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We present a case series of 11 patients with PJI who were managed surgically during the ongoing pandemic at the largest tertiary hospital in Malaysia and we hope to highlight the difficulties we have encountered during this trying period.
Materials and methods
All patients who were treated surgically at Hospital Kuala Lumpur from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, for PJI were included in this study. Written consents were obtained from all patients for the publication of this article. They were diagnosed to have PJI based on the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, whereby at least one of the following criteria was present (Table 1) [8].
Table 1. Periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis based on the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria.
| Periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis based on the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, whereby at least one of the following criteria was present | ||
| 1 | Presence of sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis | |
| 2 | A microorganism was isolated from the affected joint from at least two separate tissues or synovial fluid samples | |
| 3 | Four out of six following criteria were fulfilled | |
| A | Raised serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) | |
| B | Elevated synovial white blood cell count | |
| C | Raised synovial neutrophil percentage | |
| D | Presence of pus in the affected joint | |
| E | Isolation of a pathogen in one culture of periprosthetic tissue or synovial fluid | |
| F | More than five neutrophils per high-power field from histologic analysis of affected joint tissue | |
All patients were followed up for a minimum of four months after the surgical intervention. The demographic data, investigative results, and types of surgical interventions were obtained from the medical records. Patients who did not fulfill the MSIS criteria or those who were lost to follow-up were excluded from this case series.
Results
A total of 11 patients were enrolled in this study, with ages ranging from 39 to 79 years. Most patients were males (n=7, 63.6%) with Chinese being the most predominant ethnicity (n=6, 54.5%). All patients had pre-existing comorbidities, with a majority of them having identifiable risk factors (n=9, 81.8%). Most of the PJIs involved the knee joint (n=7, 63.6%), followed by the hip joint (three total hip replacements and one bipolar hemiarthroplasty). Their presenting complaint was mostly pain or pain with joint swelling with a variable duration ranging from two days to six months.
Table 2 summarizes the patients' demographics (age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, comorbidities, and other risk factors), their presenting complaints and duration, and the affected joint topography.
Table 2. Patients' demographic data, risk factors, presenting complaints and duration, and the affected joint topography.
M: male; F: female; BMI: body mass index; DM: diabetes mellitus; THR: total hip replacement; TKR: total knee replacement
| Patient | Age (years) | Gender | Ethnicity | BMI (kg/m2) | Smoking status | Comorbidities | Risk factors | Signs and symptoms | Duration of symptoms | Duration from index surgery | Prosthesis topography | Initial indication for replacement surgery |
| 1 | 74 | F | Chinese | 30 | No | DM, hyperlipidemia, rheumatoid arthritis | Steroid treatment | Right hip pain | 6 months | 14 years | Right THR | Osteoarthritis |
| 2 | 39 | M | Indian | 26.6 | No | Rheumatoid arthritis, Cushing's syndrome, Hepatitis B | Steroid treatment, hepatitis B | Right knee pain with sinus discharge | 1 week | 6 years | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 3 | 70 | F | Chinese | 25 | No | Hypertension | History of cellulitis | Right knee pain and swelling | 1 month | 2 years | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 4 | 75 | M | Chinese | 27.7 | No | Hypertension | Nil | Left knee pain | 1 month | 2 years | Left TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 5 | 68 | F | Indian | 24.2 | No | Hypertension, chronic renal disease | Chronic renal disease | Right knee swelling | 1 month | 4 years | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 6 | 79 | F | Chinese | 30 | No | DM, hypertension, hyperlipidemia | DM | Right knee pain | 2 days | 1 year | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 7 | 63 | M | Malay | 30 | No | Hypertension, chronic renal disease | Chronic renal disease | Left hip pain | 6 months | 10 years | Left THR | Osteoarthritis |
| 8 | 66 | F | Malay | 32 | No | Hypertension | History of cellulitis | Right knee pain | 2 weeks | 10 years | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
| 9 | 74 | F | Chinese | 16.6 | No | Hypertension, hyperlipidemia | Delayed suture removal | Left hip pain and swelling | 10 days | 2 months | Left bipolar hemiarthroplasty | Neck of femur fracture |
| 10 | 56 | M | Chinese | 28.4 | No | Hypertension | Nil | Right hip pain and swelling | 3 months | 1 year | Right THR | Osteoarthritis |
| 11 | 53 | F | Malay | 30 | No | DM, hypertension | Skin infection | Right knee pain and swelling | 3 months | 1 year | Right TKR | Osteoarthritis |
Table 3 illustrates the patients’ investigation results such as serum parameters (white cell count, C-reactive protein level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), plain radiographic findings, samples obtained and pathogens isolated, and their subsequent surgical intervention and chemotherapy details.
Table 3. Patients' investigation results, surgical intervention and antibiotic therapy, and their short-term outcomes.
ESBL: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; CONS: coagulase-negative staphylococci; WD: wound debridment; IR: implant removal; JW: joint washout; IV: intravenous; Augmentin: amoxicillin/clavulanate; Bactrim: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; Unasyn: ampicillin/sulbactam
| Patient | WBC (109/L) | CRP (mg/L) | ESR (mm/hr) | X-ray findings | Sample(s) | Microorganism isolated | First-stage surgery | Second-stage surgery | Antibiotic usage | Short-term outcome | Comment |
| 1 | 7.9 | 3.7 | 47 | Implant loosening at the acetabulum and femoral component with osteomyelitis at the proximal femur | Synovial fluid, tissue, and bone | No growth | WD, IR, and cement spacer with interlocking nail | Pending | IV cloxacillin for 6 weeks then oral cloxacillin for 3 months | The wound healed, wheelchair ambulating | |
| 2 | 10.7 | 6.7 | 43 | No implant loosening | Tissue and pus | ESBL | WD, JW (two times) | NA | IV meropenem for 6 weeks | The wound healed, ambulating with a walking aid | The patient refuses the removal of the implant |
| 3 | 4.1 | 5.5 | 39 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | No growth | WD, JW, and insert exchange | NA | IV ciprofloxacin and clindamycin for 1 week then oral Bactrim and rifampicin for 3 months | The wound healed, ambulating without walking aid | |
| 4 | 9.3 | 56.6 | 115 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | CONS | WD, JW, and cement spacer | Pending | IV vancomycin for 2 weeks then oral Bactrim and clindamycin for 3 months | The wound healed, ambulating without walking aid | |
| 5 | 7.7 | 105 | 117 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid, tissue, and bone | Acinetobacter baumanii | WD, JW, and cement spacer | Pending | IV Augmentin for 2 weeks then oral Unasyn for 3 months | The wound healed, partially ambulating with a walking aid | |
| 6 | 8 | 3.1 | 63 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | Staphylococcus aureus | WD, JW, and cement spacer | NA | IV cloxacillin for 2 weeks then oral cloxacillin and fusidic acid for 6 weeks | The wound healed, ambulating without walking aid | |
| 7 | 9 | 3.4 | 26 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | CONS | WD, JW, and insert exchange | Pending | IV clindamycin for 2 weeks then oral Unasyn for 3 months | The wound healed, ambulating with non-weight-bearing clutches | |
| 8 | 10 | 161 | 120 | Implant loosening at the femoral and tibial component | Synovial fluid | Streptococcus dysgalactiae | WD, JW, and insert exchange | NA | IV penicillin for 2 weeks then oral Unasyn for 10 weeks | The wound healed, ambulating with a walking aid | |
| 9 | 8.86 | 20 | 66 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | Gram-positive bacilli | WD, JW, and Collatamp insertion | NA | Oral Bactrim and oral doxycycline for 6 months | The wound healed, ambulating with a walking aid | |
| 10 | 7.7 | 84 | 106 | No implant loosening | Tissue | Serratia sp. | WD, JW, and exchange of femoral head component | NA | IV cefepime for 6 weeks then oral ciprofloxacin for 6 weeks | The wound healed, ambulating with a walking aid | |
| 11 | 10 | 35 | 117 | No implant loosening | Synovial fluid | Staphylococcus aureus | WD, IR, JW, and cement spacer | Pending | IV cloxacillin for 2 weeks then oral cloxacillin for 3 months | The wound healed, partially ambulating with a walking aid |
Most of the patients’ serum white blood cell counts were not elevated, ranging from 4.1 to 10.7 x 109/L. Similarly, only five patients (45.4%) had raised serum C-reactive protein. Nevertheless, all patients except one had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rates. Upon reviewing the plain radiographs, only two patients had signs to suggest implant loosening affecting the hip and knee joints respectively. In terms of sample collection, no antibiotic was given two weeks prior to the collection of intraoperative cultures as suggested by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) [9]. Tissue and bone samples were directly sent to the laboratory while synovial fluid samples were sent in blood culture bottles (BACTECTM, Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, MD). All except two samples yielded positive cultures with various pathogens isolated.
Five patients (45.4%) underwent wound debridement, implant removal, and antibiotic cement spacer insertion, while another five patients (45.4%) underwent single-stage surgeries. One patient refused implant removal and underwent wound debridement and joint washout twice. Despite the completion of antibiotics with subsequent improvement in septic parameters, their second-stage surgeries were postponed indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the availability of operation theatres. Among the patients who underwent single-stage surgeries, two were able to ambulate without a walking aid while another three patients were ambulating with a walking aid.
Discussion
PJI remains a significant challenge for arthroplasty surgeons in terms of diagnosis as well as management [9]. A combination of detailed clinical findings, blood and radiological investigations, coupled with synovial or tissue culture are required to properly diagnose a PJI. In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection can present with atypical symptoms masquerading as PJI to further complicate the process of PJI diagnosis [10]. The dilemma we encounter was represented by case 8 in this series, wherein the patient who had undergone a bilateral total knee replacement 11 years ago presented with fever for one day associated with right knee pain and swelling for two weeks. She had a history of right lower limb cellulitis requiring admission and intravenous antibiotics two years ago. Clinically, her right knee was warm and tender with signs of effusion and limited range of movement. Her septic parameters were all elevated, further suggesting a PJI. Nevertheless, she had been in close contact with a patient with the COVID-19 infection, making her a person-under-investigation (PUI). While waiting for her polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result, arthrocentesis from the affected joint yielded Gram-positive pathogens. As she was relatively stable, she was scheduled for surgery after the period of quarantine and a repeat PCR test. She subsequently underwent wound debridement, synovectomy, joint washout, and polyethylene insert exchange.
Besides the admitted patients being at risk of COVID-19 infection, as the COVID-19 pandemic stretches the healthcare resources to the brink of collapse, most of the hospitals place their focus solely on treating patients with life-threatening conditions. All elective surgeries have been postponed to channel the resources, in terms of manpower, bed availability, and medications, toward the management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This has created an imbroglio, wherein patients who have undergone first-stage surgery and have completed antibiotic chemotherapy have to wait indefinitely for the second-stage surgery as COVID-19 shows no sign of abating. Throughout this pandemic period, there have been five patients in our center who are still awaiting their second-stage surgeries despite the completion of their antibiotic regimens and although their septic parameters are appropriate for second-stage surgery. Patients who have had first-stage revision are initially planned for revision surgeries six weeks after their first-stage surgeries. In view of the delay in the second-stage surgery, we have decided to stop antibiotics three months after the first-stage surgery despite the fact that the routine practice in our center is to continue antibiotics until the second-stage surgery. A comparative analysis of different issues encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the pre-pandemic period regarding the management of patients with PJI is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Comparison of different issues encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic period for the management of patients with PJI.
PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; PUI: person under investigation
| Issues encountered | Pre-pandemic period | During the pandemic |
| Patients’ presentation | Early (usually within days to weeks upon symptoms occurrence) | Delayed (mean of 60 days in this series) |
| Investigations | Routine septic investigations (biochemical, culture, and radiographic investigations) | Routine septic investigations PLUS COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) |
| Bed management | Generally separated from patients who have undergone clean surgeries | Generally separated from patients with PUI status. Separation from patients with clean surgeries cannot be guaranteed |
| Management (first-stage surgery) | Options of wound debridement, joint washout, and insert exchange or implant removal and cement spacer insertion, depending on intraoperative findings | Single-stage surgery such as wound debridement, joint washout, and insert exchange is preferred if clinically indicated |
| Management (antibiotic regimen) | Generally given for 6 to 8 weeks until second-stage surgery (based on culture and sensitivity) | Given for a maximum of 3 months (while waiting for second-stage surgery) |
| Management (second-stage surgery) | Performed when clinically indicated (favorable soft tissue conditions and improved septic parameters) | Postponed indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic |
In this difficult time, the question remains as to how to optimize the recovery of patients with PJI without increasing the burden on the healthcare system. This prompts us to favor single-stage revision surgery instead of the cumbersome two-stage revision surgery. There is now evidence from several comparative case series that complications and reinfection rates after single-stage revisions are similar to those in two-stage revisions [11-14]. Revision surgery protocols of PJI, designed to address the nature of these infections, were first introduced over three decades ago. The fundamental concepts for the treatment of PJI entail the necessity for implants, foreign bodies, and cement removal in combination with radical debridement. This is coupled with the use of antibiotic-loaded cement. It is based on these principles that today’s limb salvage protocols have evolved. Surgeons are now able to take advantage of growing technological innovations and employ aggressive surgical techniques for debridement followed by the restoration of function in patients with PJI. The surge in COVID-19 cases has shortened the operation list and surgery time is significantly reduced. Wise decisions should be made and resources available should be utilized smartly and judiciously to provide the best care to patients. In our center, those who underwent single-stage surgeries have achieved relatively good short-term outcomes.
Limitations of the study
This study was limited by the small number of patients included from a single institution. Nevertheless, this was the first-of-its-kind study to shed some light on an important aspect of the COVID-19 collateral damage.
Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unmeasurable collateral damage to the healthcare system globally. Many patients suffering from non-COVID-19-related diseases have received sub-standard treatment or have had their treatment delayed. It is paramount for healthcare workers to be equipped with the relevant knowledge and clinical wisdom in treating patients during this COVID-19 pandemic. Surgeons should always maintain the highest clinical awareness and level of suspicion in terms of recognizing signs and symptoms of PJI. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgeons should strongly consider the option of single-stage surgery for patients with PJI whenever feasible.
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
- 1.Collateral damage: hidden impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest system-of-care. Ball J, Nehme Z, Bernard S, Stub D, Stephenson M, Smith K. Resuscitation. 2020;156:157–163. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2049–2055. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Surgery and COVID-19. Kibbe MR. JAMA. 2020;324:1151–1152. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Prosthetic joint infections. Aslam S, Darouiche RO. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2012;14:551–557. doi: 10.1007/s11908-012-0284-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Prosthetic joint infections: an update. Abad CL, Haleem A. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20:15. doi: 10.1007/s11908-018-0622-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic joint infection after total hip or knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Bongartz T, Halligan CS, Osmon DR, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1713–1720. doi: 10.1002/art.24060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies. Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW, et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:933–946. doi: 10.1007/s10654-018-0377-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Periprosthetic joint infection: current concept. Aggarwal VK, Rasouli MR, Parvizi J. Indian J Orthop. 2013;47:10–17. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.106884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Diagnosis and prevention of periprosthetic joint infections. Tubb CC, Polkowksi GG, Krause B. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28:0–8. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can masquerade as acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection. Kenanidis E, Kakoulidis P, Anagnostis P, Beletsiotis A, Tsiridis E. Cureus. 2020;12:0. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Single-stage revision of the infected total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved functional outcomes: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Klemt C, Tirumala V, Oganesyan R, Xiong L, van den Kieboom J, Kwon YM. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:298–304. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection. Pangaud C, Ollivier M, Argenson JN. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4:495–502. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty. van den Kieboom J, Tirumala V, Box H, Oganesyan R, Klemt C, Kwon YM. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B:515–521. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B.BJJ-2020-1480.R2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Trends of prosthetic joint infection organisms and recurrence for a single high-volume arthroplasty surgeon over 20 years. Yeung CM, Suhardi VJ, Varady NH, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]