Purpose: Megaprosthetic distal femoral reconstruction (DFR) is a limb‐salvage procedure to address bone loss following two‐stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the survival of DFR compared to hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that DFR was associated with a poorer survival.Methods: In this retrospective single‐center study, 97 subjects who underwent two‐stage revision of chronic knee PJI were included. Among these, 41 were DFR. The diagnosis of PJI was established using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Implant survival was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log‐rank test as well as multivariate Cox regression at a minimum follow‐up period of 24 months.Results: The median follow‐up period was 59 (interquartile range (IQR) 45–78) months. Overall, 24% (23/97) of patients required revision surgery for infection. The infection‐free survival of rotating hinge revision TKA was 93% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 86–100%) at five years compared to 50% (95% CI 34–66%) for DFR. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for reinfection were DFR reconstruction (HR 4.7 (95% CI 1–22), p = 0.048), length of megaprosthesis (HR 1.006 (95% CI 1.001–1.012), p = 0.032) and higher BMI (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.018–1.116), p = 0.007). 10% (4/41) of patients undergoing DFR underwent amputation to treat recurrent infection. Conclusion: Megaprosthetic DFR as part of a two‐stage exchange for PJI is a salvage treatment that has a high risk for reinfection compared to non‐megaprosthetic TKA. Patients must therefore be counseled accordingly. Level of evidence: Retrospective observational study, Level IV.

Introduction: Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. Materials and methods: We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22–51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. Results: 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64–89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18–57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher’s exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. Conclusion: The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Introduction: D-dimer is a diagnostic criterion for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the serum D-dimer values in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods: We included 119 patients (50 women, 69 men; 71 knees, 48 hips) undergoing revision arthroplasty with preoperative assessment of CRP, IL-6, and serum D-dimer. Cases were classified as infected or aseptic based on the MSIS criteria of 2018. Receiver operating curves and Youden’s index were used to define an ideal cut-off value and sensitivity and specificity for the individual parameters, and respective combinations were calculated using cross-tables. Results: The median D-dimer level (2320 vs. 1105 ng/mL; p < 0.001), the median CRP level (4.0 vs. 0.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001), and the median IL-6 level (21.0 vs. 5.0 pg/mL; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group of PJI compared to the group with aseptic failure. The calculated optimal cut-off values were 2750 ng/mL (AUC 0.767) for D-dimer, 1.2 mg/dL (AUC 0.914) for CRP, and 10.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.849) for IL-6. D-dimer showed a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of 94%, whereas the CRP and IL-6 had sensitivities of 88% and 76%, and specificities of 87% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison with CRP and IL-6, serum D-dimer showed low sensitivity and specificity in our cohort. While CRP and IL-6 combination had the highest sensitivity, a combination of Il-6 and D-dimer or CRP and IL-6 had the highest specificity.

(1) Background: Modular megaprosthetic reconstruction using a proximal humerus replacement has emerged as a commonly chosen approach after bone tumor resection. However, the long-term risk for revision surgery is relatively high. One factor that might be associated with mechanical failures is periprosthetic osteolysis around the stem, also known as stress shielding. The frequency, potential risk factors, and the effect on implant survival are unknown. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study of 65 patients with sarcoma who underwent resection of the proximal humerus and subsequent reconstruction with a modular endoprosthesis. Stress shielding was defined as the development of bone resorption around the prosthesis stem beginning at the bone/prosthesis interface. The extent of stress shielding was measured with a new method quantifying bone resorption in relation to the intramedullary stem length. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 12 months with conventional radiographs available and the median follow-up amounted to 36 months. (3) Results: Stress shielding was observed in 92% of patients (60/65). The median longitudinal extent of stress shielding amounted to 14% at last follow-up. Fifteen percent (10/65) showed bone resorption of greater than 50%. The median time to the first radiographic signs of stress shielding was 6 months (IQR 3–9). Patients who underwent chemotherapy (43/65) showed a greater extent of stress shielding compared to those without chemotherapy. Three percent (2/65) of patients were revised for aseptic loosening, and one patient had a periprosthetic fracture (1/65, 1.5%). All these cases had >20% extent of stress shielding (23–57%). (4) Conclusions: Stress shielding of the proximal humerus after shoulder reconstruction with modular megaprosthesis is common. It occurs within the first year of follow-up and might be self-limiting in many patients; however, about one third of patients shows progression beyond the first year. Still, mechanical complications were rare, but stress shielding might be clinically relevant in individual cases. The extent of stress shielding was increased in patients who underwent perioperative chemotherapy. Stress shielding can be quantified with an easy method using the stem length as a reference.

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.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the long‐term survivorship, functional outcomes of a single‐design condylar constrained (CCK) TKA in primary and revision cases as well as to assess specific risk factors for failure. It was hypothesized that primary CCK TKA had a better survival than revision knees.Methods: One hundred and forty three patients who underwent revision TKA (n = 119) or complex primary TKA (n = 24) using a single‐design condylar constrained knee system (Genesis CCK, Smith & Nephew) performed at a single institution between 1999 and 2008 were retrospectively included. The median follow‐up amounted to 11.8 years (IQR 10.3–14.4). Implant survivorship was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival estimates and multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify risk factors for failure. Function was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).Results: The implant survival was 86.4% after five, 85.5% after ten and 79.8% at 15 years. A reduced implant survivorship was found in males (HR 5.16, p = 0.001), smokers (HR 6.53, p = 0.004) and in obese patients (HR 2.26, p = 0.095). Patients who underwent primary TKA had a higher revision‐free implant survivorship compared to revision TKA at 15 years (100% vs. 76%, p = 0.036). The main cause for re‐revision was infection in 10% of all revision TKA performed with the CCK design included, while no case was revised for instability.The median OKS was 39 (IQR 35–44) in 102 patients available for long‐term functional outcome.Conclusion: CCK implants are associated with excellent long‐term survival when used in primary TKA; however, survival was worse when used during revision TKA. Males, smokers, obese patients and are at higher risk for revision. While instability and aseptic loosening were rare, infection remains a major concern.Level of evidence: Level IV, retrospective observational study.