Abstract
Aims
To explore the effect of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
Methods
This study involved a retrospective collection of patients who underwent two-stage revision for chronic PJI and continued to use extended antibiotic prophylaxis in two regional medical centres from January 2010 to June 2018. The patients were divided into a short (≤ one month) or a long (> one month) course of treatment based on the duration of antibiotics following stage II reimplantation. The difference in the infection control rate between the two groups was compared, and prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed.
Results
A total of 105 patients with chronic PJI were enrolled: 64 patients in the short course group and 41 patients in the long course group. For 99 of the patients, the infection was under control during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after two-stage revision. For the short course group, the mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after stage II reimplantation was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and the infection control rate was 95.3%; for the long course group these were 45.02 days (SD 15.03) and 92.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection control rates between the two groups (p = 0.676). Cox regression analysis found that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection (p = 0.015) was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence.
Conclusion
After stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI, extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate.
Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):790–796.
Keywords: Periprosthetic joint infection, Stage II reimplantation, Course of antibiotics, antibiotics prophylaxis, Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), antibiotics, infections, reimplantation surgery, prognosis, Cox regression analysis, t-test, chi-squared test, hip and knee arthroplasty
Article focus
This study surveyed the effects of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
Key messages
The infection control rates of different courses of extended antibiotic prophylaxis after two-stage revision for chronic PJI were compared. We concluded that extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate, and longer antibiotic treatment may not be necessary.
Strengths and limitations
This study showed that the short course of antibiotics can also achieve good results after stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI.
Retrospective bias in the data collection and analysis process was unavoidable, and the antibiotic duration after stage II reimplantation does not follow the random principle. Therefore, it may lead to a certain degree of selection bias.
Introduction
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following hip and knee arthroplasty. Previous studies have reported approximate PJI incidences of 0.5% to 2% after primary arthroplasty. 1,2 PJI often leads to multiple operations, prolonged use of antibiotics, a heavy burden on patients, and major consumption of medical resources.
Several strategies are used to treat this complication. One such strategy is two-stage revision for chronic PJI, where antibiotic-impregnated spacers are placed in stage I resection surgery followed by stage II reimplantation surgery. 3 The success rate of two-stage revision varies greatly between different medical institutions. 4,5 In addition to surgical procedures, antibiotic treatment is also an important part that affects efficacy. 6
One of the controversial points is whether extended antibiotic prophylaxis following reimplantation is required. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) have shown that antibiotics for three months after stage II reimplantation surgery can help reduce the recurrence rate of infection. 7,8 However, there is also the view that if pathology and culture in reimplantation surgery confirm no infection, it should be considered aseptic surgery, and the extended use of antibiotics may render pathogens resistant to antibiotics and adversely affect the patient’s intestinal flora, as well as liver and kidney function. 9-11 Focusing on whether antibiotics are needed after stage II surgery, all of the aforementioned studies were designed to compare standard antibiotic prophylaxis (two to three days) with long course antibiotics (six to 12 weeks) after reimplantation surgery.
In our view, although stage II reimplantation surgery can be equated with aseptic surgery, the patient’s systemic immunity and local soft-tissue conditions are not comparable to those of primary arthroplasty. Extension of antibiotic treatment rather than primary arthroplasty is necessary. Therefore, we sought to establish the appropriate extended duration of antibiotic prophylaxis.
In the two medical centres where this study was conducted, extended antibiotic treatment (more than two weeks) after standard intravenous prevention is a routine procedure for patients who finished the reimplantation surgery. These cases were divided into two groups according to the duration of antibiotic treatment (one month as the critical point) after prosthesis reimplantation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different extended antibiotic durations after two-stage revision for chronic PJI on the prognosis of infection.
Methods
Patient selection and definition of the prognosis
This study retrospectively analyzed patients who were infected after primary hip and knee arthroplasty and completed a two-stage revision for chronic PJI from January 2010 to June 2018 in two medical centres. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) cases diagnosed with PJI according to the MusculoSkeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, 12 and defined as type IV according to the Tsukayama classification criteria; 13,14 and 2) the standard two-stage revision was finished, extended antibiotics prophylaxis (at least two weeks) were used after surgery. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) infection by fungi or mycobacteria; 2) infection by multidrug-resistant bacteria without antibiotic sensitivity; 3) other diseases that may affect the outcome, such as immunodeficiency, liver and kidney dysfunction, and infectious disease in other parts of the body; and 4) positive specimen culture during stage II reimplantation. To observe follow-up results, the patients were divided into a short course group (antibiotic treatment ≤ one month) and a long course group (antibiotic treatment > one month) according to the duration of extended antibiotic prophylaxis. Antibiotic-related complications included myelosuppression and antibiotic-induced dysfunction of the liver or kidney. Infection control was defined as follows: 1) during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after surgery, the patient had no clinical symptoms, signs, biology (i.e. inflammatory markers), imaging, or other signs suggesting infection; and 2) there was no need to continue antibiotic suppression.
Therapy process
The surgery for all chronic PJI patients at each centre is performed by the same surgeons (WZ, HS) under general anaesthesia, epidural anaesthesia, or combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia. The standard procedure of two-stage revision is as follows: first stage involving thorough debridement; removal of the primary prosthesis; implantation of an antibiotic-containing bone cement spacer; 15,16 and antibiotic treatment, usually including at least six weeks of antibiotics (intravenous combined with oral). Prior to reimplantation, it is customary to implement an antibiotic-free interval of six weeks or longer. During the antibiotic holiday, CRP and ESR were evaluated several times to ensure effective infection control. A new prosthesis was implanted in stage II reimplantation surgery. Next, effective intravenous antibiotics, as indicated by the drug susceptibility results of the stage I resection surgery, were routinely used for one to two weeks, after which oral antibiotics were employed. For methicillin-sensitive gram-positive bacteria, cefuroxime or cefazolin is generally administered intravenously, followed by an oral regimen, including cephalosporins, fluoroquinolone, rifampin, etc. If the pathogen is a methicillin-resistant staphylococcus (MRS), intravenous vancomycin is generally given and later changed to oral linezolid or fluoroquinolone. For gram-negative bacteria, third-generation cephalosporins (such as ceftazidime) are administered intravenously, followed by oral third-generation cephalosporins or fluoroquinolone; if resistant bacteria are present, the medication is adjusted according to the results of drug sensitivity.
Demographic characteristics
After imposing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 125 cases treated with extended antibiotics prophylaxis after two-stage revision were collected. A total of 20 patients were excluded: three died (due to cerebral haemorrhage and pneumonia), and 17 were lost to follow-up. Ultimately, 105 cases were included. There were 64 cases in the short course group with the mean follow-up time of 57.34 months (SD 28.59), and 41 cases in the long course group with the mean follow-up time of 52.95 months (SD 22.77). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of sex, age, BMI, surgical site, sinus condition, diabetes, hypertension, or infection-related indicators before the stage I resection surgery (Table I). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of MRS infection, culture negative, and multiple pathogen infection (p = 0.243, p = 0.754 (both chi-squared test), and p = 1.000 (Fisher’s exact test), respectively) (Table II). Information about the pathogenic microorganisms detected in the 105 patients is shown in Table III.
Table I.
Demographic data of the two groups of patients and related indicators.
| Demographic | Short course group | Long course group | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age, yrs (SD)* | 64.58 (9.48) | 62.66 (11.04) | 0.345† |
| Sex, n * | 0.191‡ | ||
| Male | 38 | 19 | |
| Female | 26 | 22 | |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 (SD)* | 24.48 (2.78) | 23.84 (2.29) | 0.231† |
| Affected joint * | 0.942‡ | ||
| Knee | 27 | 17 | |
| Hip | 37 | 24 | |
| Diabetes * | 0.963‡ | ||
| Yes | 8 | 5 | |
| None | 56 | 36 | |
| Hypertension * | 0.635‡ | ||
| Yes | 15 | 8 | |
| None | 49 | 33 | |
| Before stage I resection surgery | |||
| Sinus | 0.963‡ | ||
| Yes | 8 | 5 | |
| None | 56 | 36 | |
| Mean CRP, mg/l (SD) | 37.80 (37.62) | 38.57 (33.28) | 0.915† |
| Mean ESR, mm/h (SD) | 65.75 (30.80) | 61.27 (33.74) | 0.485† |
| Mean WBC, × 109/l (SD) | 7.44 (2.89) | 7.26 (2.91) | 0.763† |
| Mean PMN, % (SD) | 65.04 (17.44) | 61.37 (17.20) | 0.293† |
| Mean SF-WBC, × 106/l (SD) | 41,221.39 (66,175.04) | 41,918.48 (78,694.09) | 0.965† |
| Mean SF-PMN, % (SD) | 73.46 (17.69) | 70.74 (20.62) | 0.518† |
| Between stage I and stage II surgery | |||
| Duration of antibiotic, wks (IQR) | 6.0 (5.0 to 7.0) | 6.0 (6.0 to 7.5) | 0.125† |
| Antibiotic holiday, wks (IQR) | 9.0 (6.0 to 16.0) | 9.0 (6.5 to 15.0) | 0.677† |
| Before stage II reimplantation surgery | |||
| Mean CRP, mg/l (SD) | 8.14 (2.32) | 8.20 (1.89) | 0.900† |
| Mean ESR, mm/h (SD) | 11.58 (3.59) | 10.34 (3.17) | 0.074† |
| Mean WBC, × 109/l (SD) | 5.8 (1.33) | 6.09 (1.43) | 0.297† |
| Mean PMN, % (SD) | 59.52 (9.32) | 56.83 (9.24) | 0.152† |
| Mean SF-WBC, × 106/l (SD) | 838.07 (276.55) | 865.83 (266.29) | 0.612† |
| Mean SF-PMN, % (SD) | 46.78 (11.66) | 42.8 (8.56) | 0.065† |
This information was obtained before stage II reimplantation surgery.
Independent-samples t-test.
Chi-squared test.
IQR, interquartile range; PMN, polymorphonuclear leucocyte; SD, standard deviation; SF, synovial fluid; WBC, white blood cell.
Table II.
Comparison of the infection control between two groups.
| Variable | Short course group | Long course group | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus | 0.243* | ||
| Yes | 6 | 7 | |
| No | 58 | 34 | |
| Culture-negative | 0.754* | ||
| Yes | 8 | 6 | |
| No | 56 | 35 | |
| Multiple pathogen infections | 1.000† | ||
| Yes | 3 | 1 | |
| No | 61 | 40 | |
| Mean follow-up time, mths (SD) | 57.34 (28.590) | 52.95 (22.77) | 0.871‡ |
| Infection control | 0.676† | ||
| Yes | 61 | 38 | |
| No | 3 | 3 |
Chi-squared test.
Fisher’s exact test.
Independent-samples t-test.
SD, standard deviation.
Table III.
Pathogenic microorganism information of 105 patients (at the time of the stage I resection surgery).
| Pathogenic microorganisms | Short course group | Long course group |
|---|---|---|
| Staphylococcus epidermidis | 11 | 10 |
| Propionibacterium acnes | 0 | 1 |
| Escherichia coli | 4 | 0 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 1 | 1 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 2 | 0 |
| Staphylococcus warneri | 1 | 0 |
| Gram-positive bacilli | 0 | 1 |
| Staphylococcus lentus | 1 | 0 |
| Streptococcus lentus | 1 | 0 |
| Salmonella gallisepticum serotype | 1 | 0 |
| Multiple infections | 3 | 1 |
| MRCNS | 0 | 3 |
| Multiple infections | 13 | 6 |
| Helcococcus kunzii | 0 | 1 |
| Bacillus subtilis | 1 | 0 |
| Alcaligenes xylosoxidans | 0 | 1 |
| Coagulase-negative staphyloccocci | 1 | 0 |
| Culture-negative | 8 | 6 |
| Staphylococcus human | 1 | 1 |
| Staphylococcus haemolyticus | 4 | 0 |
| Staphylococcus caprae | 1 | 0 |
| Streptococcus lactis | 0 | 1 |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equine | 1 | 0 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 1 | 1 |
| Achromobacter | 0 | 1 |
| Staphylococcus intermedius | 0 | 1 |
| Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis | 4 | 2 |
| Mycobacterium gordonae | 1 | 0 |
| Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus | 2 | 2 |
| Staphylococcus cohnii | 0 | 1 |
MRCNS, methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci.
The length of antibiotic treatment following stage I resection surgery and the exact antibiotic-free interval prior to reimplantation for the two groups were no significantly different (p = 0.125 and p = 0.677, respectively (independent-samples t-test)) (Table I). The mean time of antibiotic use after stage II reimplantation in the short course group was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and 45.02 days (SD 15.03) in the long course group, with a significant difference (p < 0.001, independent-samples t-test). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the defined antibiotic regimen after stage II reimplantation (p = 0.431, chi-squared test) (Table IV).
Table IV.
Antibiotic treatment plan for the two groups of patients after stage II reimplantation.
| Variable | Short course group | Long course group | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean time of antibiotic use, days (SD) | 20.17 (5.30) | 45.02 (15.03) | ＜0.001* |
| Antibiotic regimen | 0.431† | ||
| Vancomycin + other | 21 | 21 | |
| Fluoroquinolone + other | 20 | 10 | |
| Cefuroxime + fluoroquinolone + others | 10 | 4 | |
| Cefuroxime + other | 10 | 4 | |
| Other | 3 | 2 | |
| Rifampin | 0.860† | ||
| Yes | 15 | 10 | |
| No | 49 | 31 |
Independent-samples t-test.
Chi-squared test.
SD, standard deviation.
Statistical analysis
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to evaluate the normality of the distribution of continuous variables. For continuous variables conforming to a normal distribution, the independent-samples t-test was used to compare differences between groups; if they did not conform to a normal distribution, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. For categorical variables, the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact probability test was used for comparison. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis and log rank method were used to identify possible factors affecting the prognosis of infection, and variables with significant differences were further analyzed by the Cox regression method. The difference was statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Results
Infection control rate and antibiotic-related complications
During the follow-up period of at least two years, according to the definition of the infection prognosis, the overall infection control rate was 94.3% (99/105). Six patients (5.7%) experienced infection recurrence after the stage II reimplantation, including three cases in each group (Table II). The infection control rates of the short course group and the long course group were 95.3% and 92.7%, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.676, chi-squared test). The antibiotic-related complication rate of the long course group was higher (9.8%) than the short course group (7.8%), but without significant difference (p = 0.734, chi-squared test).
Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the long course and short course groups were drawn and compared by the log rank method; the survival curves were the same (log rank, p = 0.587). In terms of infection control after stage II reimplantation, no obvious advantages for the use of long course antibiotics were found (Figure 1).
Fig. 1.
Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis results of two groups.
Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors for infection recurrence
Single-factor analysis (Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log rank method) of the other possible factors affecting the prognosis of infection (including age, sex, surgical site, sinus, diabetes, hypertension, staphylococcal infection, MRS infection, culture-negative, multiple infections, antibiotic-related complications, and antibiotic duration after stage I surgery) was also conducted. According to the result of the log rank method, MRS infection was the prognostic factor for infection recurrence (p = 0.002). The MRS infection and the duration of antibiotic after stage II reimplantation were included in the Cox regression model for further analysis, which showed MRS infection (p = 0.015) to be a prognostic factor for infection recurrence after the stage II reimplantation.
Infection recurrence cases
Five of the six recurrent cases were staphylococci, including three cases of MRS. Information of the six patients with infection recurrence is shown in Table V.
Table V.
Six cases of recurrence infection.
| Case | Group | Age, yrs /sex |
Diagnosis | BMI, kg/m2 | CRP, mg/l |
ESR, mm/h |
Synovial fluid | Microorganisms (detected in stage I resection surgery) | Pathogenic microorganisms (recurrence) |
Antibiotic regimen | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traits | SF-WBC, × 106 /l | SF-PMN, % | ||||||||||
| 1 | Short course | 64/male | Left hip PJI | 32.8 | 90 | 120 | Purulent | 8,890 | 82 | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis | Vancomycin + Linezolid |
| 2 | Short course | 63/male | Left knee PJI | 29.6 | 66 | 112 | Purulent | 6,005 | 81 | Staphylococcus haemolyticus | Staphylococcus haemolyticus | Cefuroxime |
| 3 | Short course | 53/male | Right hip PJI | 31.5 | 6 | 71 | Purulent | 6,766 | 71 | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis | Vancomycin + Levofloxacin |
| 4 | Long course | 72/male | Right hip PJI | 19.33 | 51 | 120 | Purulent | 143,270 | 91 | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus | Vancomycin + Moxifloxacin |
| 5 | Long course | 63/female | Right knee PJI | 26.5 | 9 | 45 | Purulent | 4,394 | 91 | Klebsiella pneumoniae | Klebsiella pneumoniae | Meropenem + Cefuroxime Sodium |
| 6 | Long course | 47/male | Left hip PJI | 25.04 | 46 | 74 | Purulent | 160 | 63 | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus | Vancomycin + Cefuroxime |
PJI, periprosthetic joint infection; PMN, polymorphonuclear leucocyte; SF, synovial fluid; WBC, white blood cell.
For the cases 1 to 3 involved in the short course group, the pathogens at the time of primary infection were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE), staphylococcus haemolyticus, and MRSE, and antibiotics were used for 21 days, 21 days, and 28 days after stage II reimplantation surgery, respectively. The recurrence occurred at 30 weeks, 24 weeks, and 12 weeks after stage II reimplantation, and the aetiological result was consistent with that of primary infection.
For the cases 4 to 6 involved in the long course group, the pathogens at the time of primary infection were Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), respectively, and the antibiotics were used for 56 days, 42 days, and 60 days after stage II reimplantation surgery, respectively. The recurrence occurred at twenty-six weeks, eight weeks, and ten weeks after stage II reimplantation, and the aetiological result was consistent with that of primary infection.
Discussion
The common surgical approach for chronic PJI is two-stage revision, 17 although controversy remains with regard to the duration of antibiotic use after stage II reimplantation. Some studies have concluded that following stage II reimplantation, the use of two to three days of standard antibiotic prophylaxis can achieve infection control rates equivalent to four to six weeks of antibiotic use, 18-20 but studies with higher levels of evidence have found that extending antibiotic treatment to three months was beneficial for infection control. 7,8 The RCTs showed that extended antibiotics should be used, thus raising a new question: if antibiotics use needs to be extended, for how long should they be used? Therefore, our study divided patients into a short course of extended antibiotic treatment (mean 20.17 days (SD 5.30)) and a long course of extended antibiotic treatment (mean 45.02 days (SD 15.03)) and found infection control rates of 95.3% and 92.7% for the short course and long course groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.676, Fisher’s exact test). Further Cox regression analysis showed that the duration of systemic antibiotics after stage II reimplantation was not a prognostic factor for the recurrence of PJI. Hence, according to the results, extended antibiotic treatment after reimplantation can be shortened from three months to one month, which may reduce the side effects of antibiotics and the economic burden for patients with the same low recurrence rate.
The overall infection control rate was 94.3% (99/105) in this study, which was at a high level compared to previous studies. 8,17,21,22 This may be related to the comprehensive use of tissue culture technology, 23 ultrasonic lysis technology, and metagenomic next-generation sequencing 24,25 to improve pathogen identification. The high detection rate of pathogens and clear drug susceptibility in the involved cases made the application of antibiotics more appropriate. 26 In addition, antibiotics were applied for at least six weeks after stage I resection surgery based on drug susceptibility results, followed by a minimum six-week antibiotic-free interval. Therefore, the interval between stage I and stage II was usually more than three months, and some patients even underwent stage II reimplantation one to two years after stage I resection in our cohort. Although previous studies have pointed out that longer intervals will not bring better results, 27 we believe that extending the interval helps mitigate antibiotic-induced intestinal flora disorder and immunosuppression, 9 providing a chance for immune recovery to reduce the risk of infection after stage II reimplantation.
In contrast to Yang et al’s 8 result that new pathogens account for the majority of cases of “re-infections” after reimplantation surgery, all cases of “recurrence” in this study were caused by original pathogens, of which MRS accounted for the majority. Of the 13 cases of infection with MRS, recurrence occurred in three patients, at a rate of 23.08%. Further analysis found that MRS was a prognostic factor for recurrence after stage II reimplantation. We believe that our more cautious strategy of a long antibiotic holiday has prevented some “reinfection” cases and that the recurrence cases were due to the host and pathogen’s own factors. In terms of pathogens, for example, S. aureus evading host immunity and antibiotics through intracellular infection was considered as an important reason for recurrence in recent research. 28,29
This study also has some limitations. Firstly, although this was a multicentre study, the sample size was still relatively small, which was related to the low incidence of PJI. Retrospective bias in the data collection and analysis process was unavoidable, and the antibiotic duration after stage II reimplantation does not follow the random principle, it may lead to a certain degree of selection bias. Secondly, the PJI patients in this study were from two medical centres, and the differences in the detailed process of two-stage revision will inevitably cause more confounding factors. Indeed, the two groups of patients can only be simply matched in terms of antibiotic regimen (such as deciding whether to use vancomycin). Finally, patients who were culture-positive during stage II reimplantation were excluded from our cohort, and such an approach will elevate the infection control rate of the included patient population.
In summary, after stage II reimplantation of PJI, the use of a short course of antibiotics did not increase the recurrence rate. Therefore, the use of long-term antibiotics may not be necessary. Certain pathogens, such as MRS infection, may be a prognostic factor for recurrence after stage II reimplantation. Patients with such a prognostic factor may need prolonged antibiotic use, although this conclusion needs to be verified by further research. This study provides useful information that the ‘appropriate extension’ strategy for prolonged use of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation surgery may be a more eclectic and effective approach.
Author contributions
X. Fang: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Q. Wang: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
X. Yang: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
F. Zhang: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
C. Huang: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Z. Huang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
H. Shen: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
W. Zhang: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Acknowledgements
We thank Lixiong Nie, Yang Chen and Yuanqing Cai for their contribution in data collection and data processing, thank Dr. Wenbo Li and Dr. Bin Yang for their contribution to the ideas of the article and microbial culture.
Ethical review statement
Ethical approval was obtained from the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University Ethics Committee (Approval No: MRCTA, ECFAH of FMU (2019) 296).
Open access funding
The authors confirm that the open access fee for this study was self-funded.
Contributor Information
Xinyu Fang, Email: fangxinyu0417@foxmail.com.
Qiaojie Wang, Email: wangqiaojie@hotmail.com.
Xurong Yang, Email: jlyxr0598@163.com.
Feiyang Zhang, Email: zhangfeiyang@sjtu.edu.cn.
Changyu Huang, Email: cyhuang0520@126.com.
Zida Huang, Email: huangzida@163.com.
Hao Shen, Email: shen3hao@163.com.
Wenming Zhang, Email: zhangwm0591@fjmu.edu.cn.
References
- 1. Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Mu Y, et al. . National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: Data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(10):783–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Namba RS, Inacio MCS, Paxton EW. Risk factors associated with deep surgical site infections after primary total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 56,216 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95-A(9):775–782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Chalmers BP, Mabry TM, Abdel MP, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD, Perry KI. Two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty with a specific articulating antibiotic spacer design: reliable periprosthetic joint infection eradication and functional improvement. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(12):3746–3753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Khan N, Parmar D, Ibrahim MS, Kayani B, Haddad FS. Outcomes of repeat two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(6_Supple_B):110–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Pangaud C, Ollivier M, Argenson J-. N. Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(8):495–502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Zywiel MG, Johnson AJ, Stroh DA, Martin J, Marker DR, Mont MA. Prophylactic oral antibiotics reduce reinfection rates following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):37–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Frank JM, Kayupov E, Moric M, et al. . The Mark Coventry, MD, Award: Oral Antibiotics Reduce Reinfection After Two-Stage Exchange: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(1):56–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Yang J, Parvizi J, Hansen EN, et al. . 2020 Mark Coventry Award: Microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduce the rate of failure due to further infection after two-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic infection: a multicentre randomized controlled trial at a minimum of two years. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(6_Supple_A):3–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Esposito S, Esposito I, Leone S. Considerations of antibiotic therapy duration in community- and hospital-acquired bacterial infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(11):2570–2575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bhalodi AA, van Engelen TSR, Virk HS, Wiersinga WJ. Impact of antimicrobial therapy on the gut microbiome. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(Suppl 1):i6–i15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Bruniera FR, Ferreira FM, Saviolli LRM, et al. . The use of vancomycin with its therapeutic and adverse effects: a review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(4):694–700. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the international consensus on periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:1450–1452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tsukayama DT, Estrada R, Gustilo RB. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. A study of the treatment of one hundred and six infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78-A(4):512–523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tsukayama DT, Goldberg VM, Kyle R. Diagnosis and management of infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 1:S75–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Zhang W, Fang X, Shi T, et al. . Cemented prosthesis as spacer for two-stage revision of infected hip prostheses: a similar infection remission rate and a lower complication rate. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(8):484–492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Yang C, Wang J, Yin Z, et al. . A sophisticated antibiotic-loading protocol in articulating cement spacers for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection: A retrospective cohort study. Bone Joint Res. 2019;8(11):526–534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Puhto AP, Puhto TM, Niinimäki TT, Leppilahti JI, Syrjälä HP. Two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: outcome and role of reimplantation microbiology in 107 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1101–1104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Hsieh PH, Huang KC, Lee PC, Lee MS. Two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer: retrospective comparison between short-term and prolonged antibiotic therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64(2):392–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Whittaker JP, Warren RE, Jones RS, Gregson PA. Is prolonged systemic antibiotic treatment essential in two-stage revision hip replacement for chronic Gram-positive infection? J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2009;91-B(1):44–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Yen H-T, Hsieh RW, Huang C-Y, et al. . Short-course versus long-course antibiotics in prosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of one randomized controlled trial plus nine observational studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(9):2507–2516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mortazavi SMJ, Vegari D, Ho A, Zmistowski B, Parvizi J. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: predictors of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):3049–3054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wolf M, Clar H, Friesenbichler J, et al. . Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange. Int Orthop. 2014;38(7):1363–1368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Fang X, Zhang L, Cai Y, et al. . Effects of different tissue specimen pretreatment methods on microbial culture results in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint Res. 2021;10(2):96–104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Huang Z, Li W, Lee G-C, et al. . Metagenomic next-generation sequencing of synovial fluid demonstrates high accuracy in prosthetic joint infection diagnostics. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(7):440–449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Cai Y, Fang X, Chen Y, et al. . Metagenomic next generation sequencing improves diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by detecting the presence of bacteria in periprosthetic tissues. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;96:573–578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Wang C, Huang Z, Li W, Fang X, Zhang W. Can metagenomic next-generation sequencing identify the pathogens responsible for culture-negative prosthetic joint infection? BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Winkler T, Stuhlert MGW, Lieb E, et al. . Outcome of short versus long interval in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: a prospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(3):295–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kolenda C, Josse J, Medina M, et al. . Evaluation of the Activity of a Combination of Three Bacteriophages Alone or in Association with Antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus Embedded in Biofilm or Internalized in Osteoblasts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(3):e02231-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Yang D, Wijenayaka AR, Solomon LB, et al. . Novel Insights into Staphylococcus aureus Deep Bone Infections: the Involvement of Osteocytes. mBio. 2018;9(2):e00415-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]