Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) with osteosynthesis material for contemporaneous fractures are a challenging, yet poorly described condition. This study will analyze PJI with co-existing fractures treated with cerclages and two-stage exchange. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with and without cerclages for coexisting periprosthetic fractures, undergoing two-stage exchange for PJI of hip or knee, between 06/2013 and 02/2016, were compared concerning baseline characteristics and re-infection rate in the course of a 2 year follow-up. All patients were treated with a standardized two-stage protocol. A PJI was defined according to the EBJIS criteria. All foreign material, including cerclages, was sent in for sonication for microbiological analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients treated with two-stage exchange for PJI could be included. Co-existing fractures treated with cerclage were identified in nine patients (9.3%, study group). Diaphyseal femoral simple in five cases (AO2A3) and proximal intertrochanteric in three cases (AO1A3) were the leading fracture locations. In one patient, cerclage implantation was performed prior to prosthesis explantation, in six, during prosthesis explantation, and in two, in the course of prosthesis reimplantation. The study group showed a significantly higher rate of difficult to treat microbes (44.4%; 8.0%; p = .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.4; 3.7; p = .033), relapse infections with the same microbe (22.2%; 1.1%; p = .001), and early-onset infections (< 30 days) (11.1%; 1.1%; p = .046), than the comparison two-stage exchange group without fractures. In contrast, age (72.5 study group; 68.2 comparison group; p = .224), rate of revisions for PJI in the past (55.5%; 51.7%; p = .827), and total re-infection rate (22.2%; 10.3%; p = .287) did not show a difference. CONCLUSION: PJI with co-existing cerclages for fractures were associated with multi-resistant microbes, relapse by the same microbe and early-onset re-infections. Cerclages might be considered a potential source of re-infection during a two-stage exchange. However, statistical weaknesses and a small study group must be considered limitations of the study.