Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.

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.

Introduction: The most common causative organism in periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is Gram-positive bacteria that are increasingly drug resistant. In these cases the use of linezolid may be warranted. However, there are conflicting reports regarding its role in antibiotic treatment of PJIs. The aim of this review is to gather and analyze clinical results and treatment details on linezolid in patients with PJIs. Methods: In August 2019, a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid) and Cochrane Library was performed. A total of 504 records were screened, and a total of 16 studies including 372 patients treated with linezolid for a PJI were included in this review based on the PRISMA criteria and after quality analysis using the MINOR score and Newcastle–Ottawa scale, as well as assessing level of evidence. Pooling analysis as well as descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Based on the results from the studies included, infection control was achieved in 80 % (range 30 %–100 %) of patients after a mean follow-up period of 25 (range 2–66) months. The mean duration of treatment was 58 d intravenous and orally at a median dose of 600 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) (range 400–900 b.i.d.). A combination therapy with rifampicin was used in 53 % of patients. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infections were present in 29 % and resistant CoNS (coagulase-negative Staphylococcus) in 46 %. Adverse effects occurred in 33 % of cases, mostly anemia, thrombocytopenia and gastrointestinal complaints leading to treatment discontinuation in 9 %. However, great heterogeneity was found with respect to surgical treatment, diagnosis of infection and indication for linezolid. Discussion: Linezolid is an appropriate option for treatment of resistant Gram-positive organisms in PJIs. Most commonly 600 mg b.i.d. is used, and a combination with rifampicin appears feasible although one must consider individual increases in doses in these cases. However, adverse effects are common and there are limited data for long-term use and optimal antibiotic combinations or individual doses.