
Learn the Revision total knee replacement: First stage of Implantcast MUTARS MK EPR using reinforced static antibiotic cement spacer surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Revision total knee replacement: First stage of Implantcast MUTARS MK EPR using reinforced static antibiotic cement spacer surgical procedure.
Increasing numbers of primary and revision knee replacements inevitably lead to more prosthetic joint infections (PJI) presenting to specialist PJI multi-disciplinary teams. Infection is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty and the most common cause for early failure of joint replacements and most common cause for failure of revision knee replacements at any time. That PJI is associated with higher mortality (than some common malignancies) has been widely reported; five year survival after PJI is 78% compared to 90% in patients undergoing aseptic revision arthroplasty (Matar H, et al. Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Significantly Higher Mortality Than Aseptic Revisions: Long-Term Single-Center Study (1254 Patients). Journal of Arthroplasty 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.01.068).
The treatment of prosthetic joint infection typically requires surgery involving explant of the infected prosthesis, radical debridement and then either immediate reimplantation or use of an antibiotic loaded cement spacer and delayed reimplantation i.e. a two-stage revision, as in this case. Alternative strategies include debridement and implant retention with modular exchange (indicated in acute PJI) and single-stage revision (considered in infected primary arthroplasty implants, sensitive organisms and without soft-tissue defects requiring plastic surgery). There is endless debate about selecting the correct option for each case, the decision is multi-factorial and probably best decided in specialist PJI MDTs.
Infected revision knee replacements are increasing in prevalence due to the increasing numbers of revision joint replacements being performed for septic and aseptic indications such that a 7.5-fold increase in re-revision knee replacements due to infection that has been experienced in the UK since 2005 (Lenguerrand et al. Description of the rates, trends and surgical burden associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection following primary and revision knee replacements in England and Wales: an analysis of the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014056. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014056). Dependent upon the type of host status, repeat two-stage revision for re-infected knee replacements has proven to be possible, although in immunocompromised hosts with poor soft-tissues, amputation should be considered. These limb-salvage procedures are challenging for numerous reasons including segmental bone loss, poor residual bone stock, poor soft-tissues and (usually) medically compromised patients. The outcomes of repeat two-stage revision are not widely described; our hospital data estimates that failure due to recurrent infection after 2 years is 50%, compared to 10% in primary two-stage revisions of infected primary knee replacements, although with repeated surgery the limb-salvage rate exceeds 95%. Failure to control PJI leads to further surgery, antibiotic suppression or amputation.
Here I present a challenging case of PJI in a previously revised TKR with expected segmental femoral and meta-epiphyseal tibial bone loss necessitating an extended tibial osteotomy to explant the infected prosthesis and resection of the distal femur. I demonstrate a technique using overlapping Kuntscher nails (slotted intramedullary nails, first used in WWII) to reinforce static antibiotic loaded cement spacers to stabilise the knee and deliver local antibiotics to the joint cavity, which is a cost-effective method for temporary static spacers with segmental bone loss.
OrthOracle readers will also find the following techniques of interest:
Revision total Knee replacement: Second-stage with distal femoral EPR (Implantcast MUTARS MK) and EPORE collar and tibial cone
Revision Total Knee Replacement: Second stage using PFC / MBT with metaphyseal sleeve and stem (Depuy)
Revision total Knee Replacement- Legion Rotating Hinge Knee ( Smith and Nephew)
Revision total Knee Replacement: Legion CCK (Smith and Nephew)
Revision Total Knee Replacement: First stage for acute Prosthetic Joint Infection (Zimmer-Biomet articulating spacer)

Indications
Indications for a two-stage revision arthroplasty in my practice would include the presence of a multi-drug resistant organism, the presence of a fungal organism, the presence of a sinus and/or soft-tissue defects requiring plastic surgery and culture negative PJI. There is huge debate about whether to do single or two-stage revision procedures, but it comes down to the surgeons preference given the combined host, soft-tissue and microbiological factors for each individual case, but pre-operative discussion in a specialist MDT is advocated to help rationalise such recommendations.
Intra-operatively the the AORI classification (Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instructional Course Lectures. 1999 ;48:167-175) can be used to classify the bone loss of the (F) femur and (T) tibia:
F1: No bone defects
F2A: Unicondylar bone loss
F2B: Bicondylar bone loss
F3: Bone defect involving one or both condyles
T1: No bone defects
T2A: Unicondylar bone loss
T2B: Bicondylar bone defect
T3: Bone defects with extension below the fibula head.
Symptoms and Examination
Patients with PJI present with pain at rest and at night, pain exacerbated with weight bearing, stiffness, swelling, heat, redness, restriction and can feel generally unwell, although systemic sepsis is very unusual and should prompt systemic investigations including echocardiograms and possibly CT thorax/abdomen/pelvis for other foci of infection.
Examination should detail and document previous scars (including old sinus tracts, check the popliteal fossa!), swelling of the joint and sometimes of the limb distally, limited range of motion, instability or telescoping if the prosthesis is loose and sites of pain. To complete the examination, the distal neurovascular status should be documented, the joint above and below examined and neurological status confirmed. Consider the presence of other joint arthroplasties (particularly above the knee if a distal femoral endoprosthesis is required), other joint degeneration including shoulder arthropathy for the use of crutches and rehabilitation.
Imaging
Dedicated x-rays of the knee are required (including skyline patella views), but when planning a revision knee replacement, and in particular revision to an endoprosthetic replacement, I prefer a standing long-leg alignment view AP and laterals for alignment and to prepare for unexpected extra-articular deformities including bowing of the tibia or femur and narrow medullary canals. CT, as in this case, is useful to confirm healing of previous osteotomies used at the first-stage to explant prostheses or to plan custom implants.
Alternative Operative Treatment
The alternative to a two-stage procedure would be to do a single-stage revision, which I would term a two-in-one stage revision, whereby the first half of the operation you explant and debride, lavage and then pause, re-prep with clean drapes and fresh surgical instruments and then proceed to the second part of the operation to reimplant a prosthesis.
Arguably, the same protocol should apply for debridement and implant retention (DAIR) procedures: Chung et al. reported superior infection eradication with a two-stage DAIR and modular exchange in hip and knee prostheses for infection (Chung AS, et al. Two-Stage Debridement With Prosthesis Retention for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infections,
The Journal of Arthroplasty 2019:34(6);1207-1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.013).
Non-Operative Management
In some cases, one might consider long-term antibiotics suppression having aspirated the joint and confirmed the microbiological sensitivities of the infected organism, however we know that antibiotics suppression is associated with toxicity from the antibiotics, such as nausea, diarrhoea and malaise; consequently suppression fails in about a quarter of patients or due to progressive loosening and symptoms from the infected joint.
Contraindications
Contraindications of surgery are any medical co-morbidities that would prevent anaesthesia for a major surgical procedure.


VTE prophylaxis: 28 days clean plus thromboelastic stockings for 6 weeks and foot pumps whilst an inpatient when in bed.
IV Vancomycin and Meropenem. Stop Meropenem if no gram negatives on 48 hour tissue culture and continue Vancomycin until MDT decide on oral switch antibiotics.
X-rays whole left leg AP-lateral when possible
Protected weight bearing using frame/crutches until 2 week check X-ray
Vacuum dressing off day seven
Clip removal 14 days
Dietician review and oral supplements

The outcomes for revision knee replacements for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are well established, although the debate about single versus two-stage revision continues. The decision about indications for single-stage revision is predicated by the host, soft-tissue and microbiological factors. Historically culture-negative PJI cases would have been an indication for a two-stage revision in our centre, although recent literature has cast doubt on that strategy; van den Kieboom et al. recently reported no difference in the outcomes of single versus two-stage revisions in chronic culture-negative PJIs (van den Kieboom et al. One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty a retrospective cohort study. Bone Joint Journal 2021 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B.BJJ-2020-1480.R2).
Macpherson et al. were the first authors to report outcomes for revision knee surgery for infection and relate their successes and failures to the medical comorbidities of the patient. In their series of 50 cases, complication rates were strongly related to poor medical condition and poor soft-tissue condition; this led to their staging system for host, infection and soft-tissue status, later adopted by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) (McPherson, EJ et al. Periprosthetic Total Hip Infection, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2002; 403: 8-15).
Fehring et al. retrospectively reviewed 45 re-revision knee replacements with PJI stratified by MSIS staging system for host, infection type and extremity status and concluded that all MSIS host C3 (two or more: age >80 years, alcoholism, chronic respiratory, inflammatory or real disease, immunosuppression, malignancy, etc) were associated with failure to eradicate infection such that alternative management strategies should be considered (Fehring K et al. Repeat Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Knee Infection Is Dependent on Host Grade, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: January 4, 2017 – Volume 99 – Issue 1 – p 19-24 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00075)
Vadiee et al. in a similar study, stratified re-revision knee replacement patients according to the MSIS classification and unsurprisingly found a higher incidence of failure in those patients with poor general health based on the MSIS score, inadequate soft-tissue envelope and resistant bacteria (Vadiee I, Backstein DJ.
The Effectiveness of Repeat Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection,
The Journal of Arthroplasty 2019: 34(2); 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.021).
Kim et al. reported 78% and 75% infection ‘control’ after second and third-time two-stage revision surgery for PJI in the long-term after mean 15 and 7 years respectively (Kim, YH, et al. Long-term result of a second or third two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplasty 3, 8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-020-00062-4). These results are remarkable, considering our experience of re-revision knee replacements undergoing second two-stage revision for PJI with a 50% eradication rate after two-years!
The non-PJI related complications off revision surgery are frequently under-reported in the literature; in a very open paper Hartzler et al. described the medical and surgical complications of two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasties for PJI. Their study highlighted that half of all patients experience a complication, that the mortality was 18% at almost 4 years, and that 7% of patients failed to progress to the second stage due to death or medical complications. These issues need to be factored into both patient counselling and literature reporting (Hartzler MA, et al. Complications in the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):145–150).
Lastly, just to instigate further debate, the role of two-stage revision in complex reconstructions for PJI has been challenged: Jeffrey et al. defined complex revision knee reconstructions as the presence of more than one of the following: metaphyseal cones/sleeves, distal femoral replacement, periprosthetic fracture instrumentation, or fully cemented stems measuring >75 mm. They compared the outcomes of 87 patients undergoing two-stage revision versus DAIR and concluded that DAIR with chronic antibiotic suppression was as effective as two-stage revision to prevent re-operation for infection and was more effective in terms of maintaining function ( Jeffrey BJ. et al. Irrigation and Debridement with Chronic Antibiotic Suppression Is as Effective as 2-Stage Exchange in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Extensive Instrumentation, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: January 6, 2021 – Volume 103 – Issue 1 – p 53-63 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00240).
According to Divano et al., clinical studies of porous tibial cones have shown a low rate of aseptic loosening, intraoperative fractures, infection rate and a lower failure rate than the previous treatment methods. Mean aseptic loosening of the tibial cones and mean intraoperative cone-related fracture rates are 0.84 and 0.89%, respectively (Divano, S, et al. Porous metal cones: gold standard for massive bone loss in complex revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of current literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 851–863 (2018) doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2936-7).
Reference
- orthoracle.com

































































