Showing posts with label revision shoulder arthroplasty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revision shoulder arthroplasty. Show all posts

Sunday, December 15, 2024

Revising the shoulder with a periprosthetic infection: how important is it to remove everything?

For most cases of shoulder periprosthetic infection, the single stage with complete implant exchange is the "go to" procedure.




However, in some patients with complex periprothetic infections in which complete implant exchange is difficult and risky, surgeons have competing priorities: 1. trying to cure the patient's infection or 2. trying to preserve the comfort and function of the patient's shoulder. The interesting thing about #1 is that no matter how hard we try, we can never be sure that we have removed every last bug from the shoulder and have eliminated the possibility of a recurrence down the line. 

Vigorous attempts to stamp out infection may involve removal of all implants and cement, but these attempts may permanently compromise the comfort and function of the patient's shoulder. Imagine an elderly person with fragile bone and a well cemented implant who has developed drainage from her shoulder, which otherwise is functional and painless. Is she better served by complete explantation or by a washout, culture-specific antibiotics and - should she continue to drain - offering her the option of retaining her implants and managing the drainage with dressings?




The authors of Does retained cement or hardware during 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection increase the risk of recurrent infection? sought to determine if incomplete removal of cement and hardware adversely affected the results of revision for infection.


Specifically they compared the rates of repeat infection at two years after 2-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection in 37 patients who had retained cement or hardware compared to those who had complete removal.

Repeat infection was defined as either ≥2 positive cultures at the time of the second-stage with the same organism that was cultured during the first-stage or repeat surgery for infection after the two-stage revision. 

 Six patients had retained cement and 1 patient had 2 retained broken glenoid baseplate screws after first-stage revision.  30 patients had no retained hardware.

10 cases had recurrent infection:


Patient demographics were not significantly associated with recurrent infection.






Of the 10 cases of recurrent infection, 1 case had retained cement/hardware while 9 had no retained cement/hardware.

Thus 1 of 7 (14%) with retained cement/hardware had a recurrent infection while 9 of 30 (30%) with no retained cement/hardware had a recurrent infection. Retained cement or hardware was not significantly associated with a repeat risk of infection.

The authors suggested that surgeons should consider leaving cement or hardware that is difficult to remove and may lead to increased morbidity and future complications. 

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link). 


Saturday, September 23, 2023

Salvaging the failed humeral arthroplasty with humeral bone loss.


Proximal humerus bone loss is commonly encountered in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Bone loss can occur from component loosening and ensuing osteolysis, infection, as well as preoperative and intraoperative fracture. Careful preoperative assessment of the humeral anatomy can inform planning for surgical revision. Of particular importance is the quantity and quality of bone along the humeral diaphysis and metaphysis and the condition of the important soft tissue attachments, including the rotator cuff, deltoid and pectoralis major.

Humeral bone deficiencies can contribute both to instability of the joint and to instability of fixation of the revision implant.



1. Joint instability

The stability of the reverse total shoulder depends on concavity compression: the compression of the glenosphere into the concavity of the humeral liner by the deltoid and other scapulohumeral muscles.


Post-revision glenohumeral instability of the reverse total shoulder can be caused by inadequate restoration of humeral length and/or soft tissue attachments to the proximal humerus. Loss of humeral length reduces the tension in the deltoid, and thereby decreases its ability to provide the compressive force that stabilizes the joint. Compromised insertions of subscapularis, coracobrachialis, latissimus dorsi / teres major and pectoralis major can also contribute to insufficient joint compression.


2. Implant instability.

Instability of the humeral component is often manifested by inadequate rotational stability of the implant in the humerus. The non-circular cross section of the metaphyseal canal provides the best opportunity for obtaining rotational stability.




Some of the steps that are helpful in optimizing (1) the stability of the joint and (2) the stability of the humeral component in revision reverse total shoulder include

1. Assessing the quantity, quality and pathoanatomy at each level of the humeral bone.

Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous Insufficiency (PHAROS) Classification System characterized the bone loss in three regions (epiphysis (1), metadiaphysis above the deltoid insertion (2), and diaphysis below the deltoid insertion (3)) as well as the bone quality in terms of cortical thinning of greater (A) or less than 50% (B) of the expected thickness. Epiphyseal bone loss can isolated compromise of the medial calcar (C) or greater tuberosity (G).



Some examples are shown below. The authors recommend that grade 2B and 3 bone loss be treated with allograft-prosthetic composites (APC) or a humeral replacement mega-prosthesis.




2) Determining whether residual cement is securely attached to bone and of possible use of cement-within-cement fixation of a new humeral implant

The example below shows an intact cement mantle without radiographic signs of loosening at the bone-cement interface. The revision was performed with a cement-in-cement revision and resulted in stable fixation at 4 years after surgery.




The example below shows a cement mantle fracture and radiolucency at the bone-cement interface that raises concern about the applicability of a cement-in-cement revision



3) Evaluation of the risk of infection (serum WBC, ESR, CRP, frozen sections, joint fluid for cell count, frozen sections, as well as submission of tissue explant specimens for culture). Often a course of postoperative antibiotics is used until the results of the intraoperative cultures become available. 

4) Restoring humeral length to optimize soft tissue tension 

One approach to restoring humeral length is to utilize contralateral films as guide to the desired humeral length as shown below.



Another approach is to determine the added length necessary to restore soft tissue tension as detailed by the authors of Revision Arthroplasty with Use of a Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis-Allograft Composite










5) Achieving secure fixation of the implant to healthy host bone, such as purchase in a length of healthy diaphysis exceeding two cortical diameters (see 
Evaluation and treatment of postoperative periprosthetic humeral fragility fractures)



6) Assuring robust rotational control of implant, for example through plate fixation of APC to host bone.



7) Retaining or restoring critical soft tissue attachments, such as deltoid, pectoralis major, remaining rotator cuff and subscapularis 




Example below from Ben Sharareh, past UW Shoulder Fellow






8) Minimizing stress risers at distal end of APC, especially in osteoporotic bone (avoid ending plate and stem at same level, “protecting the whole bone”). Example below from Jonah Hebert-Davies, UW Shoulder Faculty.


9) Optimizing stability of glenohumeral articulation (selection of glenosphere diameter of curvature and lateral offset, tensioning using polyethylene liner of appropriate thickness, avoiding unwanted contact between humerus and scapula (neck, acromion).

The example below shows a glenosphere exchange to a larger diameter, inferior offset at a revision for humeral loosening with massive humeral bone loss. The new glenosphere optimizes soft tissue tension and compression.





Below are some of the relevant articles on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in shoulders with loss of humeral bone.

2009 Revision Arthroplasty with Use of a Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis-Allograft Composite recommended allograft-prosthesis composites in cases with humeral defects ranging from 3.5 to 15.0 cm.

2013 Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty points to the association of bone loss with humeral loosening, lack of rotational stability, and infection.

2014 The metaphyseal bone defect predicts outcome in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture sequelae found that the clinical outcome was influenced by a metaphyseal bone defect of more than 3 centimeters and degenerative changes of the teres minor. 

2016 Long-term analysis of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented long stems  emphasized the importance of sufficient quantity and quality of distal humeral bone in obtaining fixation with long stem cemented humeral components.

2017 Large diaphyseal-incorporating allograft prosthetic composites: when, how, and why : Treatment of advanced proximal humeral bone loss  found that well-fixed humeral stems could be treated with short metaphyseal allografts in most cases. Loose stems required longer diaphyseal-incorporating allografts. Noncemented stems required diaphyseal grafts in most cases, compared to cemented stems which required larger grafts in one-third of cases.

2018 Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty indicated proximal humeral allograft for revisions of shoulders with 5 cm or more proximal humeral bone loss). 

2019 Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous Insufficiency (PHAROS) Classification System  divided bone loss into three regions (epiphysis, metadiaphysis above the deltoid insertion, and diaphysis below the deltoid insertion) and bone quality by cortical thinning of greater or less than 50% of the expected thickness. Epiphyseal bone loss is subdivided into isolated compromise of the medial calcar or greater tuberosity. The authors provided radiographic examples of each degree of bone loss.

2023 Humeral bone defects in revision shoulder arthroplasty  divided bone loss based on the involvement of five segments of the humerus, as shown below This classification helps accounts for loss of bone in regions of stabilizing muscle attachments.

This post was prepared with the great help and direction from Mihir Sheth, M.D., UW shoulder fellow.

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth
Follow on facebook: click on this link
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

Sunday, November 6, 2022

Revising the failed anatomic total shoulder to a hemiarthroplasty

The authors of Revision of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Hemiarthroplasty: Results at Mean Five-Year Follow Up observe that while there is a trend to manage failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (aTSA) with revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), such revisions can be complicated by difficulties in baseplate fixation, humeral fractures, instability, and acromial stress fractures. In some patients, deficient glenoid bone stock from glenoid component loosening and removal makes conversion to reverse arthroplasty challenging and risks postoperative baseplate loosening.

As an alternative, some cases of symptomatic glenoid loosining after aTSA can be effectively revised using a hemiarthroplasty (HA): removing the glenoid component and replacing the humeral head prosthesis to an implant that best fits within the remaining bony concavity (see examples below).





They studied twenty-nine patients who underwent a single stage conversion from aTSA to HA with mean follow-up of 4.5 years. 26 (90%) shoulders had glenoid component loosening, 8 (28%) had humeral component loosening, and 5 (17%) had both.

The subscapularis was found to be torn in 9 (30%), and the superior or posterosuperior cuff to be torn in 3 (10%).

Pain improved in 25 of 30 patients (87%); mean pain scores improved from 6.2 to 3.1.

Mean Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores improved from 4.1 to 7.3;

18 of 29 patients (62%) had improvement above the SST MCID threshold of 2.4

22 of 29 (76%) of patients were satisfied with the procedure.

Revision surgery was required in 7 of 29 (24%) of patients. Two had reimplantation of anatomic polyethylene component, two had revision to reverse arthroplasty, and three patients had a revision hemiarthroplasty with complete single stage exchange for continued pain and stiffness.

Fifty-nine percent of patients (17 of 29) had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria. Of these, 14 patients had ≥2 Cutibacterium cultures, 4 had ≥2 coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) cultures, and 1 had ≥2 cultures for both bacteria. Of the 8 patients that had humeral component loosening, 7 (88%) had 2 or more positive cultures with the same bacteria – 5 with Cutibacterium and 3 with CoNS.
.
Comment: As pointed out in a prior post, Managing the loose glenoid component after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty may be managed non operatively, by glenoid component removal and humeral head exchange, by reimplantation of an anatomic glenoid component, or by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

How might we consider these options?

The advantages of conversion of a failed anatomic total shoulder to a hemiathroplasty lie in 
(1) avoiding the catastrophic glenoid component failure that could occur with conversion to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, 
(2) avoiding the risks of dislocation and acromial/spine fractures with reverse total shoulder
(3) potentially avoiding the fracture risk associated with removal of the humeral component
If the hemiarthroplasty fails to yield satisfactory comfort and function, consideration can be given to re-revision to an anatomic or reverse total shoulder.

On the other hand, if glenoid failure is accompanied by failure of the rotator cuff, consideration should be given to reverse total shoulder as the first revision (among the 6 patients who underwent conversion from aTSA to HA with cuff failure, only 3 (50%) attained MCID improvement of SST and only 3 (50%) were satisfied with the results of their revision).

If glenoid failure is associated with humeral component loosening, this and prior studies report a very high rate (88%) of multiple positive deep cultures. In such a situation, harvesting multiple deep specimens for culture, humeral and glenoid component removal, thorough debridement, topical antibiotics and a course of postoperative antibiotics should be considered.

Of course prevention of total shoulder failure is better than trying to treat it. (see The glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty: getting it done right).

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

To add this blog to your reading list in Google Chrome, click on the reading list icon




Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth
Follow on facebook: click on this link
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).










Saturday, October 29, 2022

How does surgery for periprosthetic infection fail?

Revision surgery for periprosthetic infection may fail because of

(1) definite septic failure: persistence of infection after revision surgery as documented by positive cultures at the time of re-revision (see Factors associated with failure of surgical revision and IV antibiotics to resolve Cutibacterium periprosthetic infection of the shoulder).

(2) possible septic failure: poor restoration of comfort and function (i.e. pain, stiffness, weakness, instability) after revision in the absence of culture evidence of recurrent infection

Definite septic failure may be overlooked because
(1) a re-revision was not performed so that multiple deep tissue and explant cultures were not obtained
(2) cultures from re-revision surgery were negative even though viable bacteria were present because
    (a) an insufficient number (i.e. fewer than five) deep tissue specimens for culture were obtained at re-revision surgery (see Origin of propionibacterium in surgical wounds and evidence-based approach for culturing propionibacterium from surgical sites) and What do positive and negative Cutibacteriumculture results in periprosthetic shoulder infection mean? A multi-institutional control study
    (b) bacterial growth was suppressed by the preoperative administration of antibiotics
    (c) the concealment of bacteria in a biofilm on the prosthetic implants so that they were not detected by tissue cultures (see Culturing explants for Cutibacterium at revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of explant and tissue samples at corresponding anatomic sites)
    (d) specimens obtained at re-revision were not cultured on aerobic, anaerobic, and broth media (see Origin of propionibacterium in surgical wounds and evidence-based approach for culturing propionibacterium from surgical sites)
    (e) cultures were not observed for 14 days to optimize detection of Cutibacterium (the most common organism causing shoulder periprosthetic infection) (see Prognostic factors for bacterial cultures positive for Propionibacterium acnes and other organisms in a large series of revision shoulder arthroplasties performed for stiffness, pain, or loosening)
    (f) the inability of certain strains of bacteria to form colonies on laboratory media (see Growing Unculturable Bacteria, Viable But Not Culturable (VBNC), Bacterial Viability
    (g) an intracellular location of the organisms so that they do not grow on media (see Cutibacterium acnes is an intracellular and intra-articular commensal of the human shoulder joint)

The authors of An Enhanced Understanding of Shoulder PJI using Next generation Sequencing: Findings at 3-year Clinical Follow-up suggest that a possible cause of septic failure is that cultures at the time of an index revision arthroplasty may not detect the presence of pathogentic bacteria so that the patients do not receive prolonged antibiotics beyond standard perioperative prophylaxis.. They further suggest that next generation sequencing (NGS) of samples obtained at the time of index revision may be able to detect organisms present but not isolated by traditional culture (see Comparative study of cultures and next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of shoulder prosthetic joint infections).

They identified 6 re-revisions that yielded ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria. Four of these six had no growth on cultures at the index revision. NGS detected bacterial DNA at the index revision in all six cases. Patients with positive NGS results had a mean of seven (range: 1-13) unique bacterial species identified per procedure. The table below shows that NGS detected DNA from organisms that are ubiquitous in the environment and not thought to be pathogenetic (such as A. radiorestens). It also confirms that Cutibacterium was the organism commonly isolated in these six confirmed septic revisions (those that had positive cultures at re-revision - see right hand column).


Thus antibiotic and surgical treatment of a failed arthroplasty must be planned in recognition that organisms, especially Cutibacterium, may persist in the shoulder even if cultures at the time of the index surgical revision are negative. While it is suggested that failure of the index procedure to resolve the infection could be attributed to lack of treatment for an organism detected by NGS and not identified by culture at the index revision, this study does not provide evidence of persistent infection after the index revision by organisms other than Cutibacterium and Staph Epidermidis, so that prolonged antibiotic coverage for these organisms should be considered.

It is of importance to note that NGS can fail to detect viable organisms demonstrated by positive cultures (including the two most commonly isolated from shoulder periprosthetic infections: Cutibaterium and S. Epidermidis). In this study, NGS at the index revision did not detect S. Epidermidis in the one case where this organism was cultured at re-revision.


In the table below from Comparative study of cultures and next-generationsequencing in the diagnosis of shoulder prostheticjoint infections, the lack of sensitivity of NGS to Cutibaterium and S. Epidermidis is demonstrated even when these organisms are present in large numbers.



The lack of sensitivity of NGS for Cutibacterium is also pointed out by the authors of Cutibacterium acnes is less commonly identified by next-generation sequencing than culture in primary shoulder surgery, who concluded, "There was limited concordance between culture and next-generation sequencing for C. acnes identification. Further studies are needed to determine the potential for next-generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool."

Our understanding of NGS in the detection of Cutibacterium would be greatly enhanced by submitting samples containing different dilutions of the bacteria as well as control samples with no Cutibacterium or other bacteria for next generation sequencing. This would determine the sensitivity of NGS for Cutibacterium as well as the frequency with which DNAs from other bacteria were detected.




At this point it remains unclear whether next generation sequencing is of value in determining treatment of the failed arthroplasty (see 
Revision shoulder arthroplasty - what is the role of next-generation sequencing?)

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

To add this blog to your reading list in Google Chrome, click on the reading list icon




Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth
Follow on facebook: click on this link
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

What is the significance of cultures obtained at revision arthroplasty?

During revision of shoulder arthroplasties presenting with pain, stiffness or prosthetic loosening, surgeons frequently obtain Cutibacterium-specific cultures of deep tissues and prosthetic explants because:

(1) Cutibacterium is the bacterium most commonly isolated from shoulder periprosthetic infections and (2) Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections (CPJI) typically have a stealth type presentation without the fever, chills, swelling, erythema, tenderness, and elevated serum or joint fluid inflammatory markers characteristic of the obvious periprosthetic infections from other organisms that can complicate hip and knee arthroplasties.


While some authors refer to positive cultures in the absence of obvious evidence of periprosthetic infection as unexpected, these cultures are obtained because surgeons expect some of their shoulder revisions to be sufficiently culture positive to merit treatment for CPJI. 


As an example, a young healthy man who had an initially normal post-arthroplasty course for 9 months and then develops otherwise unexplained pain and stiffness of the shoulder and who has high loads of Cutibacterium on a swab of the unprepared skin over the shoulder would be expected to be at high risk for positive Cutibacterium cultures obtained at the time of revision. In such a case multiple deep tissue and explant cultures would be submitted for aerobic and anaerobic cultures to be observed for at least 14 days. Because the cultures were expected to be positive, the revision would probably consist of a single stage prosthesis exchange after thorough debridement and lavage followed by a course of antibiotics starting immediately after surgery and continued until the results of the cultures were final. Subsequent treatment would be guided by the results of the cultures.





The authors of Evidence-Based Approach to Managing Unexpected Positive Cultures in Shoulder Arthroplasty point out that positive cultures are commonly found when surgeons send intraoperative cultures to rule out periprosthetic joint infection in failed arthroplasties that do not have obvious clinical or radiographic signs of infection. 


They conducted a review of 22 studies reporting on positive cultures from patients who did not have clinical or laboratory findings consistent with infection preoperatively. Studies that included patients with obvious periprosthetic infections were excluded. 


These authors report that the primary finding from their study was that the rate of positive deep tissue cultures was 27.5% in revision shoulder arthroplasty; Cutibacterium, accounted for 76.4% of these cases. Only 3 of the 22 studies investigated the culture rate of control cultures of inanimate specimens (sterile gauze or suture), The pooled rate of positive cultures in these three studies was 20.1%


The utilization of antibiotics and treatment regimens varied across these studies. Patient reported outcomes and re-operation rates did not differ between patients with positive and those with negative cultures


Based on the results of this review, the authors recommend that at least five cultures be obtained at revision arthroplasty and that two or more positive cultures are suggestive of true bacterial colonization. Cultures that have 2+ or more growth on agar plates indicate a much greater bacterial burden compared to only one colony or growth only in the broth.  The senior author’s preferred protocol is typically to put all revisions on a 14 day course of oral doxycycline while awaiting final culture data.  


The authors state that the positive culture rate in revision arthroplasty (27.5) was "only slightly greater than the control rate of culture positivity for sterile, inanimate objects (20.1%)".  However, as pointed out above, the false positive rate of 20.1% was based on only three studies, two of which cultured sterile sponges and one of which cultured sterile suture. The 20.1% figure may not accurately reflect the false positive in most medical centers. For example, in the study What do Positive and Negative Cutibacterium Culture Results in Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Mean?, two sterile gauze samples were cultured for Cutibacterium at 11 different institutions. These samples grew Cutibacterium in only 3 of 22 samples at two of the 11 institutions, the other 9 institutions had no growth for the sterile samples. Furthermore, the strength of culture positivity was significantly lower in these negative controls compared to positive specimens (p<0.001). No negative control had >1 quadrant of Cutibacterium growth on agar plates. In sum, only 2 of the 11 institutions cultured Cutibacterium from the sterile controls and the amount of growth from these sterile controls was significantly less than that for the samples containing various concentrations of Cutibacterium. 


Similarly in Preoperative Skin-Surface Cultures Can Help to Predict the Presence of Propionibacterium in Shoulder Arthroplasty Wounds, only 2 of 50 sterile control specimens were culture positive for Cutibacterium and both of these control samples had no more than minimal growth.


Finally, in The efficacy of topical preparations in reducing the incidence of Cutibacterium acnes at the start and conclusion of total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial, none of the 101 control swabs that had been placed within the sterile field on the surgical trolley for the case duration were culture positive for Cutibacterium.

Thus it seems essential that each institution assess its own rate of positive cultures for sterile control specimens, rather than assuming that all institutions have the same false positive rate.

The importance of culturing multiple deep tissue and explant specimens in revision shoulder arthroplasty - even if there is no obvious evidence of infection - is demonstrated in Single-Stage Revision Is Effective for Failed Shoulder Arthroplasty with Positive Cultures for Propionibacteriumrevised shoulder arthroplasties having 2 or more positive cultures for Cutibacterium and treated with single stage revision and appropriate antibiotic therapy had at least as good 4 year outcomes as for revised shoulder arthroplasties with no or minimal Cutibacterium growth. 

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth

Follow on facebook: click on this link

Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen

Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).



Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Single stage revision of infected reverse total shoulder - 14 year followup.

 A 45 year old right handed active man had a Simple Shoulder Test score of 4/12. His x-rays revealed severe capsulorrhaphy arthropathy with posterior dislocation of right shoulder after a Putti Platt procedure for shoulder instability performed many years earlier.




At surgery he was found to have massive humeral and glenoid deformity with severe posterior glenoid erosion and malformation of the humeral head with posterior capsular laxity and anterior capsular contracture. His surgery was a humeral hemiarthroplasty with subscapularis lengthening. His post operative film is shown here.

                                       

However, the humeral head again became posteriorly unstable. A year later he had an open reduction of the posteriorly dislocated shoulder with anterior release, prosthetic head removal, posterior cortical iliac autograft of the glenoid with screw fixation, posterior soft tissue reconstruction, and reinsertion of hemiarthroplasty head. However, on testing the range of motion of the shoulder at surgery, the securely fixed bone graft fragmented requiring removal of the graft and screws and insertion of a reverse total shoulder. His postoperative film is shown here.

                                                  

Three years later he represented with pain in his shoulder that started with golfing. He had no clinical evidence of infection. His x-rays showed humeral osteolysis and subsidence

  


He then had a single exchange revision of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty to a long stemmed humeral component and a new glenoid component at which time six cultures were obtained before antibiotics were administered. At this procedure there was a substantial amount of membrane and granulomatous tissue from the glenoid and from the humeral medullary canal. There was no cloudy fluid and no purulence.

His histology showed gram-positive rods and up to 40 white blood cells per high power field on frozen section. The patient’s final pathology eventually returned “synovial tissue with multiple foci of dense neutrophilic infiltrates (greater than five neutrophils per high power microscopic field using a 40 X objective in at least five separate microscopic fields) in a background of prominent plasmacytic inflammation and hemosiderin-laden macrophages.” He was placed on a six-week course of IV vancomycin and rifampin, which was changed to ceftriaxone to better cover Propionibacterium after the culture results were final at 3 weeks.

His culture results were as follows:
Glenoid Membrane No. 1: 2+ Propionibacterium
Glenoid Membrane No. 2: 1+ Propionibacterium 
Fluid Right Glenoid: 1+ Propionibacterium
Humeral Membrane No.1: 1 colony Propionibacterium
Humeral Membrane No. 2: 1+ Propionibacterium
Humeral Membrane  No. 3 One colony Propionibacterium

He remained on oral Augmentin for a year.

Six years after his most recent revision he was playing tennis (tossing the ball with his right hand serving with his left), skiing gentle slopes, and running for fitness. His x-rays at 6 years showed stable component fixation.
  




At 14 years after his revision, he returned for followup, reporting a comfortable shoulder that allowed him to play tennis and golf. His films at 14 years are shown below.







Comment: This case reveals the challenges of severe capsulorrhaphy arthropathy with posterior instability as well as the substantially delayed insidious presentation of osteolysis associated with Propionibacterium (Cutibacterium).

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.


Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth

Follow on facebook: click on this link

Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen

Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).