Cargando…

Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Klingebiel, Sebastian, Theil, Christoph, Gosheger, Georg, Schneider, Kristian Nikolaus, Ackmann, Thomas, Timme, Maximilian, Schorn, Dominik, Liem, Dennis, Rickert, Carolin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7826686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33435442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020218
_version_ 1783640579715891200
author Klingebiel, Sebastian
Theil, Christoph
Gosheger, Georg
Schneider, Kristian Nikolaus
Ackmann, Thomas
Timme, Maximilian
Schorn, Dominik
Liem, Dennis
Rickert, Carolin
author_facet Klingebiel, Sebastian
Theil, Christoph
Gosheger, Georg
Schneider, Kristian Nikolaus
Ackmann, Thomas
Timme, Maximilian
Schorn, Dominik
Liem, Dennis
Rickert, Carolin
author_sort Klingebiel, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7826686
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78266862021-01-25 Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Klingebiel, Sebastian Theil, Christoph Gosheger, Georg Schneider, Kristian Nikolaus Ackmann, Thomas Timme, Maximilian Schorn, Dominik Liem, Dennis Rickert, Carolin J Clin Med Article Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder. MDPI 2021-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7826686/ /pubmed/33435442 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020218 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Klingebiel, Sebastian
Theil, Christoph
Gosheger, Georg
Schneider, Kristian Nikolaus
Ackmann, Thomas
Timme, Maximilian
Schorn, Dominik
Liem, Dennis
Rickert, Carolin
Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title_full Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title_fullStr Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title_short Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection
title_sort clinical outcome of two-stage revision after periprosthetic shoulder infection
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7826686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33435442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020218
work_keys_str_mv AT klingebielsebastian clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT theilchristoph clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT goshegergeorg clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT schneiderkristiannikolaus clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT ackmannthomas clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT timmemaximilian clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT schorndominik clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT liemdennis clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection
AT rickertcarolin clinicaloutcomeoftwostagerevisionafterperiprostheticshoulderinfection