Skip to main content
Download PDF

A comparsion study between debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention and two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for the management of periprosthetic joint infection occurring within 12 weeks from index total knee arthroplasty

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 17, Article number: 330 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Managing periprosthetic joint infections are variable in practices. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is one of the favorable interventions. Given that the success rate of the two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) might be overestimated. The purpose of this study is to compare the success rate between DAIR and standard two-stage rTKA with a comparable intervention time.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the consecutive knee periprosthetic joint infection cases which underwent DAIR or two-stage rTKA (all procedures were performed by the senior author) within 12 weeks since their primary TKA between July 2009 and October 2019. Average follow-up was 72.20 ± 40.70 months (range 29–148 months) in the DAIR group compared to 89.14 ± 43.06 months after spacer insertion (range 29–163 months) in the two-stage revision group (P = 0.156). According to different interventions, demographic data; timing of surgical intervention; hospital for special surgery knee score; and success rate were collected and compared between the DAIR group and two-stage revision group. Failure of treatment was based on the Delphi consensus and the fate of spacers. The pathogen types and failure cases were also recorded and analyzed.

Results

Average follow-up was 72.20 ± 40.70 months (range 29–148 months) in the DAIR group compared to 89.14 ± 43.06 months after spacer insertion (range 29–163 months) in the two-stage revision group. Time from index surgery was 3.90 ± 2.92 weeks (range 0–12 weeks) in the DAIR group, and 5.11 ± 2.86 weeks (range 0–12 weeks) in the 2-stage exchange group, respectively. The success rate was 70.0% and 75.0% in the DAIR group and two-stage revision group, respectively. But no significant differences were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

DAIR demonstrated comparable effectiveness with two-stage rTKA. We recommended DAIR as a choice for patients with current infection within 12 weeks after primary TKA. For methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections and fungal infections, two-stage rTKA might be preferred.

Background

Around the world, preventing and managing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are variable in practices. Surgical treatments include debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR); single- or two-stage revision; arthrodesis; and amputation [1]. Many surgeons termed two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) as the “gold standard” treatment [2, 3]. But recent studies have doubted the success rates of this strategy, because some patients may need an interim spacer exchange or even never undergo the second stage [4, 5].

By comparison, benefits of DAIR include retaining implants, preserving bone stock, shorter procedure duration, reducing intraoperative fractures, and rehabilitating faster [6, 7]. Barry et al. [8] found DAIR is as effective as two-stage rTKA with a success rate of 62.5%. However, in this comparative study, symptom duration showed a significant difference between the DAIR group and two-stage revision group. Symptom duration is an independent risk factor associated with failure of knee PJI treatment [9]. It might indicate that the different symptom durations resulted in this outcome, rather than the interventions themselves. Both symptom duration and initial arthroplasty duration reflect intervention time. To control the variable of intervention time, as the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (ICMPJI) recommended [10], we reviewed the PJIs within 12 weeks of index primary arthroplasty. This study designed to compare the success rate between DAIR and standard two-stage rTKA in patients within 12 weeks of prosthesis implantation.

Materials and methods

After the institutional review board’s approval, a retrospective review was performed on the consecutive cases which underwent DAIR or two-stage rTKA within 12 weeks since their primary TKA between July 2009 and October 2019. All procedures were performed by the senior author. PJI was diagnosed according to the criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society [11]. The exclusion criteria were (1) PJI happened beyond the primary TKA. (2) Patients with clinical or radiographic evidence of implant loosening. (3) Patients who had prior septic arthritis, bone neoplasms. (4) Patients who died between primary TKA and interventions. (5) The first stage rTKA process outside of our hospital. (6) Incomplete patient information. Based on these criteria, 54 patients (56 knees) were included in the final cohort. Preoperative diagnosis included osteoarthritis (49 knees), traumatic osteoarthritis (2 knees), rheumatoid arthritis (3 knees), and pigmented villonodular synovitis (2 knees). Among the cohort, 20 patients (20 knees) were in the DAIR group and 34 patients (36 knees) were in the two-stage revision group. Charlson comorbidity index [12]—including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary disease, digestive system disease, rheumatological disease, diabetes, malignancy, and AIDS—was used to reduce potential confounding. Patient demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Patient demographics
Full size table

Infecting organisms were recorded and analyzed according to the results of preoperative aspiration and intraoperative pathology. Culture negative was defined as being culture-negative result for all samples (at least three consecutive negative culture results) [13]. And all DAIR procedures included polyethylene exchange.

Postoperatively, all patients received antibiotic therapy based on the culture results and antibiotic susceptibility. For DAIR group, patients were firstly treated with 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics followed by 12-week oral antibiotics. For two-stage revision group, antibiotic therapy was divided into two parts. After placing an articulating antibiotic impregnated cement spacer, 6-week intravenous antibiotics and 6-week oral antibiotics were applied. After the first step of antibiotic therapy, patients had a 2 to 3 weeks’ antibiotic holiday. The interval was established by patient symptoms and laboratory examinations after the antibiotic holiday. The laboratory examinations include routine joint fluid test, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). Post reimplantation (the second stage of two-stage rTKA), the antibiotic regimen included 4-week intravenous antibiotics and 8-week oral antibiotic treatment. Failure of treatment was based on the consensus definition for success after PJI treatment [14] and the fate of spacers: (1) failed infection eradication, characterized by the presence of a sinus tract, drainage, pain, or infection recurrence caused by the same organism strain; (2) subsequent surgery for infection after the intervention; (3) failure that occurs between the two stages of two-stage rTKA; (4) medically unfit for reimplantation; (5) PJI-related mortality. Postoperative clinical and radiological data were obtained at 3 months, 6 months and annually thereafter. Hospital for special surgery knee score (HSS), complications, and recurrence of infection were collected at each follow-up. Complete data were available for all patients.

Statistics

The mean values and ranges were calculated for demographic data and presented using mean ± standard deviation with ranges. Categorical variables were described with percentages. T test was used to compare the difference between the two interventions. Chi-square analysis and Fisher exact test were used for gender compositions and success rates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York).

Results

The basic level (including age, gender composition, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity index) showed no difference between the DAIR group and two-stage revision group. Average follow-up was 72.20 ± 40.70 months (range 29–148 months) in the DAIR group compared to 89.14 ± 43.06 months after spacer insertion (range 29–163 months) in the two-stage revision group (P = 0.156). Time from index surgery was 3.90 ± 2.92 weeks (range 0–12 weeks) in the DAIR group, and 5.11 ± 2.86 weeks (range 0–12 weeks) in the two-stage exchange group, respectively. But no significant differences were observed between the two groups (P = 0.137) (Table 2).

Table 2 Data of the latest follow-up
Full size table

Table 3 lists infecting organisms according to the results of preoperative aspiration and intraoperative pathology. The most common monomicrobial infecting organisms in the DAIR group were coagulase-positive staphylococcus (25.0%) and Streptococcus (15.0%). Multiple bacteria infected three patients (15.0%). The culture results were negative in five patients (25.0%). There were one case of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE 50%) and one case of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA 20%). Comparing with two-stage revision group, coagulase-negative staphylococcus (19.4%), fungus (13.9%) and coagulase-positive staphylococcus (8.3%) are the most common infecting organisms. Multiple bacteria infected three patients (8.3%). The culture results were negative in 13 patients (36.1%). There were three cases of MRSE (43%) and one case of MRSA (33%). One case of MRSA in DAIR group and one case of MRSE in two-stage revision group failed.

Table 3 Microorganism spectrum
Full size table

The HSS scores of both groups improved in the latest follow-up, indicating satisfactory clinical efficacy. But we found no difference in preoperative HSS score and postoperative HSS score between the two groups.

The success rate was 70.0% and 75.0% in the DAIR group and two-stage revision group, respectively. Six patients (6 knees) reinfected in the DAIR group, including coagulase-positive staphylococcus (n = 2), mycobacterium tuberculosis (n = 2), polymicrobial infection (n = 1), and culture-negative PJI (n = 1). Among the six recurrences of PJI, three patients underwent a second DAIR, two of them chose two-stage rTKA, and one patient with a recurrent sinus tract hadn’t sought any treatment when we did the telephone follow-up.

In the 34 patients (36 knees) who underwent an intended two-stage revision rTKA, only 28 (30 knees) completed the second stage. Of the six patients who never undergo the second stage following the spacer placement, four patients medically unfit reimplantation and retained spacers, two patients retained spacers with acceptable function. After stopping antibiotics, those two patients didn’t have the infectious symptom recurrence and the laboratory examinations were normal. Their treatment was considered to be successful. Treatment success in this subset of patients was 75.0%. Among the nine failed cases, four patients never underwent reimplantation with persistent infections, four had another reinfection and one patient died due to PJI. Three knees of the failed cases were infected with coagulase-negative staphylococcus, one knee with coagulase-positive staphylococcus, one knee with escherichia coli, one knee with fungus, one knee with polymicrobial infection, and two knees with negative culture.

Discussion

We found that DAIR had a similar success rate and functional outcome with the patients who underwent two-stage revision. Easier surgery, preservation of bone stock, and lower morbidity make DAIR a better choice for some patients. Reports on success rates of DAIR are inconsistent, ranging from 0 to 90% [15,16,17,18]. Organism type, host factors, timing of intervention, and antibiotic treatment might contribute to the reported differences. In our study, the DAIR group had a success rate of 70%. We found no significant difference in success rates between the DAIR group and two-stage revision group.

For two-stage rTKA, many studies reported that the success rate was more than 80% [19,20,21,22]. But scholars have put forward evidence to question this view recently. Tan T.L et al. found that nearly 17% of patients may need an interim spacer exchange lacking infection control [23]. Another study demonstrated that 18% of PJIs may never complete reimplantation (the second stage of two-stage rTKA) [24]. Ford [5] taking the patients who never underwent reimplantation into account, the success rate decreased from 72.7 to 60%. In our two-stage revision group, we termed the fate of spacers as the outcome indicator rather than infection clearance, which likely overestimate the success of this treatment.

Timing of surgical intervention is one of the influence factors affecting success rate of PJI treatment [25,26,27,28]. But the optimal timing of performing DAIR is under debate. Mirza et al. [29] recommended 2 weeks as the time window, describing that the biofilm is not mature and bacteria are more susceptible to microbiological agents within 2 weeks of infection. However, an animal study verified that biofilm formation was evident in all specimens from animals within hours [30]. In our study, more than 91% of patients had symptoms for more than 2 weeks. It indicated that most patients had formed biofilm before they started interventions. And we should extend the intervention time inclusion criteria of DAIR moderately, thus, more patients could receive less invasive surgery without implant removal. Ottesen et al. [31] displayed a 90% success rate in the patients revised within 12 weeks compared 60% in the patients revised over 12 weeks. It showed that 12 weeks might be the accepted intervention time cut-point.

Type of pathogen, higher microorganism virulence, biofilm formation, and resistance to antibiotics might contribute to failed treatments. Aboltins [32] concluded that the success rate of treating staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections with DAIR was 80%. However, in patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections, the total success rate of DAIR was 18% [33]. In our study, one case of MRSA in DAIR group failed (50%). However, small sample size might lead to statistical bias. Given the low success rate of DAIR in this situation, Bradbury T et al. recommended two-stage rTKA instead. Small number of subjects and elderly patients might limit its reliability and external validity. In a study of Marculescu et al. [34], the 2-year survival rate of polymicrobial was lower but not statistically significant different than of monomicrobial PJI treated with DAIR (52.7% vs 54.0%). It indicated that multiple bacterial infections suit the treatment of DAIR. Jacobs et al. [35] found culture-negative DAIRs were not related to any complications during follow-up, overtreatment of a suspected PJI seems to do no significant harm with respect to implant failure. And all culture-negative cases were treated successfully. In our study, the success rate of culture-negative cases with DAIR is 80%, which is similar to the success rate of two-stage revision TKA (84%). Findings of a large-scale multicenter study on prosthetic joint infections caused by fungal pathogens supported the notion that two-stage rTKA may benefit for the majority of patients [36]. DAIR had a limited role and should be reserved for the healthy host with excellent soft tissues and a truly acute infection. Our previous study was consistent with this idea [37]. Only our two-stage revision group included fungal PJIs and it showed a good outcome (with a success rate of 80%). We would recommend two-stage rTKA to treat fungal PJIs. But further studies should be conducted to confirm this hypothesis.

There has been a debate regarding the outcomes of further treatments when DAIR had been carried out previously. In the study of Rajgopal et al. [38], the survival rates were lower for patients in the previous DAIR group (79.5% at 2 years and 76.13% at 10 years) compared to the two-stage revision group (85.4% at 2 years and 84.4% at 10 years). It concluded that a failed prior DAIR results in higher failure rates. But it falsely enlarged the success rate of two-stage rTKA by only including the patients who had completed the second stage of reimplantation in their final study cohort. In addition, for many studies, the 10-year survival rate of 76.13% is a satisfactory result, which cannot prove that DAIR is not a good method. Kim et al. [39] found that, at mean follow-up of 6.2 years, the success rate was 72% in the failed DAIR group and 81% in the two-staged revision group. No significant difference was observed on survival analysis in both treatment groups. It means that failed DAIR does not compromise the success of further interventions in infected TKA.

Our study has certain limitations. First, this is a retrospective design, only the record information is available for the study. Second, a relatively small sample size limits statistical comparisons between different groups. Further multicenter prospective clinical trials and larger sample size are necessary to validate the outcomes. Third, the selection of antibiotics was based on culture result and antibiotic susceptibility. However, different organisms and antibiotics may produce variation in our treatment. Fourth, the senior author in our team, following a consistent treatment protocol, performed all enrolled cases (including DAIRs and two-staged rTKAs). Limited cases failed to form a matched cohort study between groups. However, we demonstrated that the basic level has no difference between our DAIR group and the two-stage revision group.

Conclusion

In our study, the success rate of DAIR was 70%. DAIR demonstrated comparable effectiveness with two-stage rTKA. Additionally, advantages of DAIR include less trauma, relatively simple operation, preservation of bone reserve, quick recovery, and low postoperative morbidity. We recommended DAIR as a choice for patients with current infection within 12 weeks after primary TKA. According to our research it is acceptable to apply DAIR procedure in culture negative PJIs and in polymicrobial cases, but further investigations needed. For methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections and fungal infections, two-stage rTKA may be preferred.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

DAIR:

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

HSS:

Hospital for special surgery knee score

References

  1. Fehring TK, Fehring KA, Hewlett A, Higuera CA, Otero JE, Tande AJ. What’s new in musculoskeletal infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(14):1222–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haleem AA, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD. Mid-term to long-term followup of two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:35–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Petis SM, Perry KI, Mabry TM, Hanssen AD, Berry DJ, Abdel MP. Two-stage exchange protocol for periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty in 245 knees without prior treatment for infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(3):239–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen AF, Heller S, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infections. Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(6):1265–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ford AN, Holzmeister AM, Rees HW, Belich PD. Characterization of outcomes of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7s):S224–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi HR, von Knoch F, Zurakowski D, Nelson SB, Malchau H. Can implant retention be recommended for treatment of infected TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):961–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barry JJ, Geary MB, Riesgo AM, Odum SM, Fehring TK, Springer BD. Irrigation and debridement with chronic antibiotic suppression is as effective as 2-stage exchange in revision total knee arthroplasty with extensive instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(1):53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sabry FY, Buller L, Ahmed S, Klika AK, Barsoum WK. Preoperative prediction of failure following two-stage revision for knee prosthetic joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the international consensus on periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-b(11):1450–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(3):265–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watanabe S, Kobayashi N, Tomoyama A, Choe H, Yamazaki E, Inaba Y. Clinical characteristics and risk factors for culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Diaz-Ledezma C, Higuera CA, Parvizi J. Success after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a Delphi-based international multidisciplinary consensus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(7):2374–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fehring TK, Odum SM, Berend KR, Jiranek WA, Parvizi J, Bozic KJ, et al. Failure of irrigation and débridement for early postoperative periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):250–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Holmberg A, Thórhallsdóttir VG, Robertsson O, W-Dahl A, Stefánsdóttir A. 75% success rate after open debridement, exchange of tibial insert, and antibiotics in knee prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(4):457–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Urish KL, Bullock AG, Kreger AM, Shah NB, Jeong K, Rothenberger SD. A multicenter study of irrigation and debridement in total knee arthroplasty periprosthetic joint infection: treatment failure is high. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1154–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sousa R, Abreu MA. Treatment of prosthetic joint infection with debridement, antibiotics and irrigation with implant retention—a narrative review. J Bone Jt Infect. 2018;3(3):108–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Volin SJ, Hinrichs SH, Garvin KL. Two-stage reimplantation of total joint infections: a comparison of resistant and non-resistant organisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mortazavi SM, 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):3049–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Silvestre A, Almeida F, Renovell P, Morante E, López R. Revision of infected total knee arthroplasty: two-stage reimplantation using an antibiotic-impregnated static spacer. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(3):180–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaminski A, Citak M, Schildhauer TA, Fehmer T. Success rates for initial eradication of peri-prosthetic knee infection treated with a two-stage procedure. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2014;16(1):11–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan TL, Goswami K, Kheir MM, Xu C, Wang Q, Parvizi J. Surgical treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection: fate of spacer exchanges. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(9):2085-90.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Q, Goswami K, Kuo FC, Xu C, Tan TL, Parvizi J. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection: the rate and reason for the attrition after the first stage. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2749–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Buller LT, Sabry FY, Easton RW, Klika AK, Barsoum WK. The preoperative prediction of success following irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange for hip and knee prosthetic joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):857–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Geurts JA, Janssen DM, Kessels AG, Walenkamp GH. Good results in postoperative and hematogenous deep infections of 89 stable total hip and knee replacements with retention of prosthesis and local antibiotics. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(6):509–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuiper JW, Vos SJ, Saouti R, Vergroesen DA, Graat HC, Debets-Ossenkopp YJ, et al. Prosthetic joint-associated infections treated with DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention): analysis of risk factors and local antibiotic carriers in 91 patients. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(4):380–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Steckelberg JM, Harmsen SW, Mandrekar JN, et al. Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(4):471–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mirza YH, Tansey R, Sukeik M, Shaath M, Haddad FS. Biofilm and the role of antibiotics in the treatment of periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections. Open Orthop J. 2016;10:636–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ehrlich GD, Veeh R, Wang X, Costerton JW, Hayes JD, Hu FZ, et al. Mucosal biofilm formation on middle-ear mucosa in the chinchilla model of otitis media. JAMA. 2002;287(13):1710–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ottesen CS, Troelsen A, Sandholdt H, Jacobsen S, Husted H, Gromov K. Acceptable success rate in patients with periprosthetic knee joint infection treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(2):365–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Aboltins CA, Page MA, Buising KL, Jenney AW, Daffy JR, Choong PF, et al. Treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections with debridement, prosthesis retention and oral rifampicin and fusidic acid. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13(6):586–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bradbury T, Fehring TK, Taunton M, Hanssen A, Azzam K, Parvizi J, et al. The fate of acute methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic knee infections treated by open debridement and retention of components. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 Suppl):101–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marculescu CE, Cantey JR. Polymicrobial prosthetic joint infections: risk factors and outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacobs AME, Valkering LJJ, Bénard M, Meis JF, Goosen JHM. Evaluation one year after DAIR treatment in 91 suspected early prosthetic joint infections in primary knee and hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Infect. 2019;4(5):238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Azzam K, Parvizi J, Jungkind D, Hanssen A, Fehring T, Springer B, et al. Microbiological, clinical, and surgical features of fungal prosthetic joint infections: a multi-institutional experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 6):142–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao Z, Li X, Du Y, Peng Y, Wu W, Zhou Y. Success rate of fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection treated by 2-stage revision and potential risk factors of treatment failure: a retrospective study. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:5549–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rajgopal A, Panda I, Rao A, Dahiya V, Gupta H. Does prior failed debridement compromise the outcome of subsequent two-stage revision done for periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(8):2588–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim K, Zhu M, Cavadino A, Munro JT, Young SW. Failed debridement and implant retention does not compromise the success of subsequent staged revision in infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1214-20.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yanchao Zhang and Zhisen Gao contributed equally to this work and are considered co-first authors

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical School of Chinese PLA, Beijing, 100853, China

    Yanchao Zhang, Zhuoqi Sheng & Fei Zhang

  2. Department of Orthopedics, The First Medical Center, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, China

    Yanchao Zhang, Zhisen Gao, Ti Zhang, Yu Dong, Zhuoqi Sheng, Fei Zhang, Yonggang Zhou & Lingfei Guo

  3. Senior Department of Orthopedics, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100048, China

    Yanchao Zhang, Zhisen Gao, Ti Zhang, Yu Dong, Zhuoqi Sheng, Fei Zhang & Yonggang Zhou

  4. Medical School of Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China

    Ti Zhang & Yu Dong

  5. Department of Orthopedics, the Eighth Medical Centre, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Heishanhu Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100091, China

    Lingfei Guo

Authors
  1. Yanchao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhisen Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ti Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhuoqi Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yonggang Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lingfei Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LG and YZ contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by ZG, TZ and YD. ZG, ZS and FZ performed the analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by YZ, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yonggang Zhou or Lingfei Guo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Medical School of Chinese PLA.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Gao, Z., Zhang, T. et al. A comparsion study between debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention and two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for the management of periprosthetic joint infection occurring within 12 weeks from index total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 17, 330 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03218-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03218-x

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X