PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES: THE PROBLEMS OF DIAGNOSIS, PREVENTION, AND TREATMENT

One of the most menacing complications of large joint total endoprosthesis (TE) in patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) is the development of periprosthetic infection (PI), progression of which may give rise not only to limb loss, but also death. At the same time, early diagnosis and adequate surgical care make it possible not only to arrest the infectious process, but also to preserve an implanted joint.

Objective: to define criteria for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of PI after hip and knee joint (HJ and KJ) TE in patients with RD.

Subjects and methods. In 2009 to 2013, 654 KJ and 549 HJ TE was performed in the V.A. Nasonova Research Institute
of Rheumatology performed KJ (n = 654) and HJ (n = 549) joint ERs.
Results and discussion. PI developed in 12 (3.63%) and 8 (2.95%) patients after KJ and HJ ER, respectively. Early, delayed, and late PI was seen in 11, 6, and 3 patients, respectively. Eleven patients with early PI underwent joint revision/ debridement with preservation of an endoprosthesis and replacement of HJ endoprosthetic inserts and heads. The operations were completed with the collagen hemobiotics being left in the wound and its drainage. Systemic antibiotic therapy was used for 4–6 weeks. No recurrent infection was observed in 9 cases. Two patients underwent
resurgery, by setting suction-irrigation systems. Nine patients with delayed or late PI had the following operations: A single-stage revision operation (the endoprosthesis was removed and a new one was implanted) was performed in two cases of stable endoprosthetic components and accurately verified low-virulent microorganisms susceptible to certain antibiotics. It was imperative to use cement with an antibiotic, collagen hemobiotics, and systemic antibiotic therapy for 6 weeks. The other 7 patients with unstable endoprosthetic components underwent two-stage revision: Stage 1, endoprosthetic removal and antibiotic-loaded spacer implantation; 6-12 weeks after postoperative wound healing, 6 patients underwent Stage 2, removal of the spacer and implantation of a new endoprosthesis. Following Stage 1, one female patient developed generalized infection and, because of her advanced age and comorbidities, underwent amputation followed by exoprosthetic replacement.

Conclusion. The practical application of the current diagnostic criteria allowed to reveal early slowly progressive PI, perform early surgical treatment without endoprosthetic removal in 11 patients, and prevent recurrent infection in 81.8% of the patients. The described treatment policy for PI turned out to be effective and prevented recurrent infection in 70% of the patients during 1 to 5 years.

1. Каплунов ОА, Каплунов АГ, Очнев АЮ, Чернявский МА. К вопросу о тотальном эндопротезировании тазобедренных суставов при ревматических заболеваниях (предварительное сообщение). Гений ортопедии. 2007;(4):49–53 [Kaplunov OA, Kaplunov AG, Ochnev AYu, Chernyavskii MA. The problems of total endoprosthetics of the hips in case of rheumatic diseases (A preliminary report). Genii ortopedii. 2007;(4):49–5 (In Russ.)].

2. Насонова ВА, Бунчук НВ, редакторы. Ревматические болезни. Москва: Медицина; 1997. 567 с. [Nasonova VA, Bunchuk NV, editors. Revmaticheskie bolezni [Rheumatic diseases]. Moscow: Meditsina; 1997. 567 p.].

3. Trieb K, Schmid M, Stulnig T, et al. Long-term outcome of total knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2008 Mar;75(2):163–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2007.06.008

4. Emery P. Evidence supporting the benefit of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:3–8.

5. Нуждин ВИ. О фиксации эндопротеза при артропластике у больных ревматоидным артритом. В кн.: Проблема остеопороза в травматологии и ортопедии. Москва; 1997. С. 153–4 [Nuzhdin VI. On fixing the implant at arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In: Problema osteoporoza v travmatologii i ortopedii [The problem of osteoporosis in traumatology and orthopedics]. Moscow; 1997. P. 153–4].

6. Brown SR, Davies WA, DeHeer DH, Swanson AB. Long-term survival of McKee-Farrar total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop. 2002;402:157-63. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200209000-00013

7. Bongartz T, Halligan CS, Osmon DR, et al. Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic joint infection after total hip or knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Dec 15;59(12):1713–20. doi: 10.1002/art.24060

8. Davis JM 3rd, Maradit-Kremers H, Gabriel SE. Use of low-dose glucocorticoids and the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: what is the true direction of effect? J Rheumatol. 2005 Oct;32(10):1856–62

9. Белов БС, Макаров СА, Бялик ЕИ. Инфекция протезированного сустава: современное состояние проблемы. Современная ревматология. 2013;(4):4–9 [Belov BS, Makarov SA, Byalik EI. Prosthetic joint infection: state-of-the-art. Sovremennaya revmatologiya = Modern Rheumatology Journal. 2013;(4):4–9 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1996-7012 -2013-2431

10. Rodriguez-Bano J, del Toro MD, Lupion C, et al. [Arthroplastyrelated infection: incidence, risk factors, clinical features, and outcome]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008;26(10):614–20. doi: 10.1016/S0213-005X(08)75277-7

11. Workgroup Convened by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1136–8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.026

12. Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):e1–e25. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis803