Hip and knee replacements in patients with bone defects after infection correlates with high rates of reinfection. In this vulnerable patient population, the prevention of reinfection is to be considered superordinate to the functionality and defect bridging. The use of silver coating of aseptic implants as an infection prophylaxis is already proven; however, the significance of these coatings in septic reimplantation of large implants is still not sufficiently investigated. In a retrospective analysis, 34 patients who have been treated with a modular mega-endoprosthesis after a cured bone infection of the lower limb (femur or tibia) have been evaluated. One group with 14 patients (NSCG: non silver- coated group) was supplied with the non silver- coated implants: MML München- Lübeck™ modular endoprosthesis system (AQ Implants, Ahrensburg, Germany) or MUTARS® Modular Universal Tumor And Revision System (Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany). The other group with 20 patients (SCG: silver- coated group) was supplied with the silver- coated system of MUTARS®. In addition to the clinical findings and the patients’ histories, specifically the reinfection rates, the patients’ mobility was assessed using the New Mobility Score (NMS, by Parker and Palmer). The median follow-up period was 72 months, ranging from 6 to 267 months. The dropout rate was 5.8%. The reinfection rate after healed reinfection in SCG was 40% (8/20), in NSCG 57% (8/14), p = 0.34; α =0.05. The time for reinfection was, on average, 14 months (1–72 months) in SCG and 8 months (1–48 months) in the NSCG (p = 0.61; α =0.05). The two groups showed no differences in the NMS. With this retrospective analysis, it can be determined that the rate of reinfection of modular mega-endoprostheses on the hip and knee joint after healed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be reduced by the use of silver coated implants. The time until reinfection can also be delayed by utilizing silver coated implants. Due to the low number of cases of this highly specific patient population, no statistical significance could be determined. A positive effect, however, can be assumed through the use of silver coatings in mega-endoprostheses after an infectious situation.

Arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty represents a considerable burden for the patient and a therapeutic challenge for the practitioner. One possible cause discussed in the literature is a low-grade infection. This hypothesis should be examined within the scope of this retrospective study. Nineteen patients with clinical symptoms of arthrofibrosis after primary total knee arthroplasty were examined between January, 1999 and January, 2012. Incorrect positioning was radiologically ruled out. All patients were examined clinically (score of Freeman as well as Blauth and Jäger), radiologically (component and leg alignment, patella height according to Insall and Salvati), microbiologically (culture-based procedures), molecular biologically (PCR) and histologically in the course of an open revision of the prosthesis. According to the score of Freeman et al. (1977), a highly significant improvement in pain (p = 0.007) and in the overall score (p = 0.003) was shown. The knee joint mobility did not change significantly (p = 0.795). PCR was negative in 17 patients. One patient showed a PCR-positive result of the synovial membrane for Corynebacterium spp., while Staphylococcus warneri was detected in the culture. Another patient had a positive result of synovia PCR for Enterococcus cecorum as well as Corynebacterium spp. However, this culture was sterile. In 16 patient samples, no bacterial growth was detectable. Two samples were not evaluable. The main histopathological findings were synovialitis and fibrosis. The hypothesis of low-grade-infection-induced arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty could not be confirmed in this study. However, based on this small study population the conclusion needs to be confirmed by new and larger studies, ideally prospectively designed including a control group.

Modular mega-endoprosthesis systems are used to bridge very large bone defects and have become a widespread method in orthopaedic surgery for the treatment of tumours and revision arthroplasty. However, the indications for the use of modular mega-endoprostheses must be carefully considered. Implanting modular endoprostheses requires major, complication-prone surgery in which the limited salvage procedures should always be borne in mind. The management of periprosthetic infection is particularly difficult and beset with problems. Given this, the present study was designed to gauge the significance of periprosthetic infections in connection with modular mega-implants in the lower extremities among our own patients. Patients who had been fitted with modular endoprosthesis on a lower extremity at our department between September 1994 and December 2011 were examined retrospectively. A total of 101 patients with 114 modular prostheses were identified. Comprising 30 men (29.7 %) and 71 women (70.3 %), their average age at the time of surgery was 67 years (18–92 years). The average follow-up period was 27 months (5 months and 2 weeks to 14 years and 11 months) and the drop-out rate was about 8.8 %. Altogether, there were 19 (17.7 %) endoprosthesis infections: 3 early infections and 16 late or delayed infections. The pathogen spectrum was dominated by coagulase-negative staphylococci (36 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (16 %), including 26 % multi-resistant pathogens. Reinfection occurred in 37 % of cases of infection. Tumours were followed by significantly fewer infections than the other indications. Infections were twice as likely to occur after previous surgery. In our findings modular endoprostheses (18 %) are much more susceptible to infection than primary endoprostheses (0.5–2,5 %). Infection is the most common complication alongside the dislocation of proximal femur endoprostheses. Consistent, radical surgery is essential – although even with an adequate treatment strategy, the recurrence rate is very high. Unfortunately, the functional results are frequently unsatisfactory, with amputation often being the last resort. Therefore, the indication for implantation must be carefully considered and discussed in great detail, especially in the case of multimorbid patients with previous joint infections.

Elective knee and hip arthroplasty is followed by infections in currently about 0.5–2.0 % of cases – a figure which is on the increase due to the rise in primary implants. Correct diagnosis early on is essential so that appropriate therapy can be administered. This work presents a retrospective analysis of the diagnoses of patients suffering infections after total hip or knee arthroplasty. 320 patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following knee or hip arthroplasty were identified. They comprised a) 172 patients with an infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA): 56 % females (n = 96) and 44 % males (n = 76) with a mean age of 70.9 (39–92) years; and 148 patients with an infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA): 55 % females (n = 82) and 45 % males (n = 66) with a mean age of 70.7 (15–87) years. Although significantly more TKA than THA patients reported pain, erythema, a burning sensation and swelling, no differences between the two groups were observed with respect to dysfunction, fever or fatigue. However, significant differences were noted in the diagnosis of loosening (THA 55 %, TKA 31 %, p < 0.001) and suspected infection using conventional X-rays (THA 61 %, TKA 29 %, p < 0.001). FDG-PET-CT produced very good results in nearly 95 % of cases. There were no differences between THA and TKA patients regarding levels of inflammation markers. Histological evaluation proved to be significantly better than microbiological analysis. The clinical picture may be non-specific and not show typical inflammatory symptoms for a long time, particularly in PJI of the hip. As imaging only provides reliable conclusions after the symptoms have persisted for a long time, morphological imaging is not suitable for the detection of early infections. FDG-PT-CT proved to be the most successful technique and is likely to be used more frequently in future. Nevertheless, there are currently no laboratory parameters which are suitable for the reliable primary diagnosis of PJI. Diagnosis requires arthrocentesis, and the fluid obtained should always be examined both microbiologically and histologically.

The treatment aims of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the distal femur are a gentle stabilization, an early load-bearing capacity and a rapid postoperative mobilization of the affected patients. For the therapy planning of PPF a standardized classification is necessary which leads to a clear and safe therapy recommendation. Despite different established classifications, there is none that includes the types of prosthesis used in the assessment. For this purpose, the objective of this work is to create a new more extensive fracture and implant-related classification of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur based on available classifications which allows distinct therapeutic recommendations. In a retrospective analysis all patients who were treated in the University Hospital Leipzig from 2010 to 2016 due to a distal femur fracture with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were established. To create an implant-associated classification the cases were discussed in a panel of experienced orthopaedists and well-practiced traumatologists with a great knowledge in the field of endoprosthetics and fracture care. In this context, two experienced surgeons classified 55 consecutive fractures according to Su et al., Lewis and Rorabeck and by the new created classification. In this regard, the interobserver reliability was determined for two independent raters in terms of Cohen Kappa. On the basis of the most widely recognized classifications of Su et al. as well as Lewis and Rorabeck, we established an implant-dependent classification for PPF of the distal femur. In accordance with the two stated classifications four fracture types were created and defined. Moreover, the four most frequent prosthesis types were integrated. Finally, a new classification with 16 subtypes was generated based on four types of fracture and four types of prosthesis. Considering all cases the presented implant-associated classification (κ = 0.74) showed a considerably higher interobserver reliability compared to the other classifications of Su et al. (κ = 0.39) as well as Lewis and Rorabeck (κ = 0.31). Excluding the cases which were only assessable by the new classification, it still shows a higher interobserver reliability (κ = 0.70) than the other ones (κ = 0.63 or κ = 0.45). The new classification system for PPF of the distal femur following TKA considers fracture location and implant type. It is easy to use, shows agood interobserver reliability and allows conclusions to be drawn on treatment recommendations. Moreover, further studies on the evaluation of the classification are necessary and planned.