Periprosthetic Knee and Hip Infection — Is It Possible to Compare Treatment Outcomes?

Abstract

Background. It is known that the outcomes of patients treatment with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are significantly influenced by the state of the patient’s body, the nature of the pathogen, the state of tissues in the area of the infectious focus and the treatment tactics. However, topographic and anatomical features of the blood supply to the knee and hip joints, as well as the volume of soft tissues, can affect the spectrum of pathogens, manifestations of the infectious process and, as a consequence, the effectiveness of treatment. The aim of the study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the somatic status of patients, the etiology of the infectious process and the effectiveness of treatment of PJI depending on its localization. Methods. A single-center retrospective study was conducted. The cases of 337 patients were studied — 119 patients with knee and 218 patients with hip PJI who underwent treatment with a two-stage technique during the period from 2007 to 2017. A comparative analysis of the PJI pathogens structure and concomitant pathology between patients with hip and knee PJI was carried out. The frequency of infection relief in the groups following the first stage was counted. Results. Recurrence was diagnosed four times more frequently in patients with hip PJI compared to knee PJI. Risk factors for recurrence were gram-negative pathogens, microbial associations, and fistulous forms of the infectious process. Localization of the infectious process in the hip area was associated with a statistically significant greater volume of blood loss during the prolonged debridement surgery. Conclusion. Recurrences of PJI occur more frequently in the hip area compared to the knee joint. Further analysis of critical factors in recurrence development is necessary for potential intervention.

Keywords

• periprosthetic joint infection
• hip arthroplasty
• knee arthroplasty
• comorbidity
• etiology