Search

Introduction: In acute periprosthetic knee infections, debridement and implant retention (DAIR) is the preferred treatment prior to one- and two-stage revisions. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic and open debridement of infected primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA). Material and methods: We analyzed clinical, laboratory, and antibiotic treatment data, collected in patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated with DAIR at a Swiss Level 1 orthopedic and trauma center over a 10-year period between January 2005 and May 2015. Inclusion criteria were primary total knee arthroplasty and early postoperative or acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The primary endpoint was the need for further revision surgery due to persistent infection. The secondary endpoint was the prosthesis salvage in further infection surgeries. Results: Forty-two patients with 44 acute or hematogenous periprosthetic knee infections were included. We recorded 20 recurrent infections (45%) in our study population: 10 (77%) out of 13 in the arthroscopic DAIR group and 10 (32%) out of 31 in the open DAIR group. Two-stage revision, meaning complete removal of the TKA, insertion of a spacer and replantation at a second stage, had to be performed in three patients treated initially arthroscopically (23%) and in six patients treated initially with an open surgical procedure (21%). Conclusions: Open debridement for acute periprosthetic knee infection shows clear benefits in terms of infection eradication and prosthesis salvage compared to arthroscopic DAIR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Knee septic arthritis rapidly damages the knee joint. Gächter described a classification of joint infections based on arthroscopic findings: an arthroscopic staging of the common disease has prognostic and therapeutic consequences. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the application of the Gächter classification system to knee septic arthritis, evaluating prognostic and therapeutic implications of this classification. Materials and Methods A comprehensive electronic search of the literature was performed. The following search terms were used: (Arthroscopy* OR Arthrotom* OR Aspiration) AND Knee AND Septic AND Arthritis. The study reported the Gächter classification in septic knee arthritis and the eradication rate according to the type. The primary endpoint is the eradication rate of septic knee arthritis according to the Gächter sort. Secondary endpoints are surgical procedures according to Gächter classification and the rate of re-operations. Results Seven studies were included. The overall eradication rate of knee septic arthritis ranged from 90% to 100%: 95%-100% Gächter I; 97%-100% Gächter II; 67%-100% Gächter III; 50%-100% Gächter IV. Surgical treatments for knee septic arthritis included arthroscopic irrigation alone, articular irrigation, and debridement in knee arthroscopy or knee arthrotomy according to Gächter stage. However, 28% required re-operations for persistent infection: secondary procedures included further irrigation and debridement with the arthroscopic or arthrotomic approach. Conclusion Gächter classification showed a crucial prognostic role in predicting the outcome of surgical treatment of septic knee arthritis. Regardless of the procedure performed, a prompt operation and an accurate debridement of the synovial membrane are the most critical factors for eradicating infection and good clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to determine whether there are significant differences in 30-day perioperative complications between arthroscopic and open débridement (irrigation and débridement [I&D]) for septic arthritis (SA) of the shoulder using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients undergoing arthroscopic or open I&D of the native shoulder from 2006-2016 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Those with a diagnosis of SA were included in the study. Patients with a concurrent diagnosis of osteomyelitis around shoulder (n = 25) or polyarthritis (n = 2) were excluded from the study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and complications were compared between the groups. Poisson regression, which controlled for age and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, was used to calculate the relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for minor adverse events, serious adverse events, total adverse events, and unplanned reoperations between the 2 treatment groups, with significance set at P <.0125 after Bonferroni correction. Overall, 147 and 57 patients underwent arthroscopic and open I&D, respectively, for SA of the shoulder. Patients in the open I&D group were more likely to be smokers (P =.0213), whereas patients in the arthroscopy group had higher ASA scores (P =.0008). After controlling for age and ASA score, we found no significant differences in the risk of minor adverse events (P =.0995), serious adverse events (P =.2241), total adverse events (P =.1871), or unplanned reoperations (P =.3855). Arthroscopic débridement appears to be a safe alternative to open débridement for SA of the native shoulder. The incidence and risk of 30-day perioperative complications are similar after arthroscopic and open I&D for SA of the shoulder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is no standard to determine the most appropriate method of operation for the treatment of acute septic arthritis of the shoulder joint. We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients who underwent arthroscopic or open débridement for acute shoulder infection between 2001 and 2015. Arthroscopic débridement was performed in 27 patients, and open débridement in 30 patients. According to the presence of bone erosion and/or marginal erosion of cartilage of the humeral head on plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, the cases were classified into 3 groups (group 1, n = 23, without erosions in x-ray and MRI; group 2, n = 21, erosions seen in MRI but not in x-ray; and group 3, n = 13, with erosions seen in both x-ray and MRI). The arthroscopic group had a reinfection rate of 55.6% (15/27), and the open group had a reinfection rate of 16.7% (5/30). The reinfection rates in the arthroscopic and the open groups were 10% (1/10) and 15.4% (2/13) in group 1; 75% (9/12) and 11.1% (1/9) in group 2; and 100% (5/5) and 25% (2/8) in group 3, respectively. At the last follow-up, the mean University of California at Los Angeles score and the average time until normalization of white blood cell, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein in the open group showed superior results in the open group (all P <.05). When preoperative MRI showed bone and/or cartilage erosion of humeral head, the reinfection rate after arthroscopic débridement was above 75%. Therefore, if preoperative MRI showed erosions, open débridement is more likely to be appropriate than arthroscopic débridement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare open and arthroscopic surgical techniques for “cam-type” femoroacetabular impingement in terms of feasibility and reliability. Methods: We used 5 fresh-frozen cadaver specimens (10 hips). Anteroposterior and cross-table radiographs were taken for each. The head-neck union diameter was measured for each. The amount of bone resection at the anterolateral quadrant of the head-neck union was planned for each, with specific references to width, length, depth, and position. One side was randomly assigned to the open group and the other to the arthroscopic group. Surgical time, position of the osteotomy, and variation of the length, width, and depth of the final osteotomy with respect to the proposed dimensions were compared. Results: In all specimens partial resection of the anterior-lateral femoral head-neck junction with improvement of the femoral head-neck offset was accomplished. A statistically significant difference (P < .05) was observed for surgical time between the open and arthroscopic groups (shorter in open group). Conclusions: When comparing surgical precision, no statistically significant differences were found between the open and arthroscopic procedures in any of the measurements. The depth and width of the osteoplasty were reliably obtained by the arthroscopic technique. However, there was a tendency to underestimate the osteoplasty length with the arthroscopic procedure. Positioning the osteoplasty was also less reliable with the arthroscopic procedure than with the open procedure because of the tendency to place the osteoplasty more posterior and distally than intended. Clinical Relevance: Surgical resection of the femoral neck prominence and/or part of the anterolateral neck has been reported to improve femoral head offset and alleviate impingement. This study attempts to document the accuracy of this resection when done arthroscopically compared with an open procedure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]