Abstract:BACKGROUND: Despite 2 stage revision being a common treatment for elbow prosthetic joint infection (PJI), failure rates are high. The purpose of this study was to report on a single institution's experience with two stage revisions for elbow PJI and determine risk factors for failed eradication of infection. The secondary purpose was to determine risk factors for needing allograft bone at the second stage of revision in the setting of compromised bone stock.METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all two stage revision TEAs performed for infection at a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Data collected included demographics, and treatment course prior to, during and after 2 stage revision. Radiographs obtained after explantation and operative reports were reviewed to evaluate for partial component retention and incomplete cement removal. The primary outcome was failed eradication of infection, defined as the need for repeat surgery to treat infection after the second stage revision. The secondary outcome was the use of allograft for compromised bone stock during the second stage revision. Risk factors for both outcomes were determined.RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included. Seven (37%) patients had either the humeral or ulnar component retained during the 1<sup>st</sup> stage and ten (53%) had incomplete removal of cement in either the humerus or ulna. Nine (47%) patients had allograft strut used during reimplantation and reconstruction. Nine (47%) patients failed to eradicate the infection after 2 stage revision. Demographic data was similar between the repeat infection and non-repeat infection groups. Six patients (60%) with retained cement failed compared to three patients (33%) with full cement removal (p=0.370). Two patients (29%) with a retained component failed compared to seven patients (58%) with full component removal (p=0.350). Allograft was used less frequently when a well-fixed component or cement was retained, with no patients with a retained component needing allograft compared to nine with complete component removal (p=0.003). Three (30%) patients with retained cement needed allograft, compared to six (67%) patients who had complete cement removal (p=0.179).CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients failed to eradicate infection after 2 stage revision. The data did not demonstrate a clear association between retained cement or implants and risk of recurrent infection. Allograft was used less frequently when a component and cement were retained, possibly serving as a proxy for decreased bone loss during the first stage of revision. Therefore, the unclear benefit of removing well-fixed components and cement need to be carefully considered as it likely leads to compromised bone stock that complicates the second stage of revision.

Predictors of failure in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected joint replacement

Partial Two?stage Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Total Hip Arthroplasty

Related factors and intervention analysis of periprosthetic infections in patients with total hip arthroplasty

Partial Two-Stage Exchange: an Alternative Method for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

Failed 2-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

Optimal reimplantation timing in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: an observative cohort study in Asian population

What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty

Successful Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Timing on Eradication of Infection

High failure rate of two-stage revision for the infected total elbow arthroplasty: A single institution’s experience

Atypical sleep in ventilated patients: empirical electroencephalography findings and the path toward revised ICU sleep scoring criteria.

Risk factors for early septic failure after two-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection

Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection

Differences in Success Rate of Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee Depending on the Applied Definition

Ideal Timing of Reimplantation in Patients with Periprosthetic Knee Infection Undergoing 2-Stage Exchange

Factors affecting risk of recurrence with periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty

The reasons for and mortality of patients unable to receive reimplantation after resection arthroplasty for chronic hip periprosthetic infection

Elevated ESR and CRP Prior to Second-Stage Reimplantation Knee Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Are Associated with Increased Reinfection Rates

Ninety-day postoperative mortality and complications in continuous and unselected single-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infection

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after knee arthroplasty: a call for a randomised trial