Management of periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder: A narrative review
- PMID: 39296861
- PMCID: PMC11406098
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102520
Management of periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder: A narrative review
Abstract
Evidence for management of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has traditionally originated from the hip and knee literature. The differing microbiome, anatomy and implants used in the shoulder mean this evidence is not always directly transferrable. The 2018 Philadelphia International Consensus Meeting for the first-time produced evidence-based guidelines and diagnostic criteria relating specifically to PJI of the shoulder. These guidelines and criteria recognize the pathogenicity of lower virulence organisms in the shoulder which often means clinical presentation is less obvious than other joints. The role of Cutibacterium acnes in shoulder PJI is the subject of increasing basic science and clinical research and advances in microbiological research may help to understand the pathology behind shoulder infections. There is new evidence that outcomes after revision shoulder arthroplasty are dependent on the virulence of the causative organism. An individualised approach to treatment considering host factors, organism, soft tissues and bone stock is recommended. Debate continues in the literature regarding the indications of one- or two-stage revision and the latest evidence is discussed and synthesized in this review article. We advocate careful multidisciplinary team decision making for cases of shoulder PJI and recognize a limited role for debridement and implant retention in acute shoulder PJI (<6 weeks). There appears to be a role for one-stage revision in lower risk cases with low virulence organisms but caution against its' universal adoption. In higher risk or complex cases, there remains a clear role for two-stage revision arthroplasty, and we detail the specifics of this protocol and procedure from our tertiary shoulder and elbow unit.
© 2024 The Authors.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Figures
References
-
- Kirsch J.M., Puzzitiello R.N., Swanson D., et al. Outcomes after anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet] 2022 Aug 3;104(15) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35867705/ 1362–9. , [cited 2024 Jun 20] - PubMed
-
- Fraser A.N., Bjørdal J., Wagle T.M., et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is superior to plate fixation at 2 Years for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet] 2020 Mar 3;102(6):477. Available from:/pmc/articles/PMC7508281/, [cited 2024 Jun 20] - PMC - PubMed
-
- Evans J.P., Evans J.T., Craig R.S., et al. How long does a shoulder replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up. Lancet Rheumatol [Internet] 2020 Sep 1;2(9) http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2665991320302265/fulltext e539–48. , [cited 2024 Jun 10] - PubMed
-
- Valsamis E.M., Pinedo-Villanueva R., Sayers A., Collins G.S., Rees J.L. Shoulder replacement surgery's rising demand, inequality of provision, and variation in outcomes: cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics for England. BMC Med. 2023 Dec 1;21(1) Available from:/pmc/articles/PMC10601312/, [Internet], [cited 2024 Jun 10] - PMC - PubMed
-
- Farley K.X., Wilson J.M., Kumar A., et al. Prevalence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States and the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access. 2021 Jul 14;6(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34278185/ [Internet], [cited 2024 Jun 20] - PMC - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources