Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Active, not recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT02734134
Other study ID # 1106
Secondary ID
Status Active, not recruiting
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date May 18, 2016
Est. completion date December 2025

Study information

Verified date April 2024
Source OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc.
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two different treatment options commonly used to manage periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), an infection around the artificial knee or hip.


Description:

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a very common and successful procedure, and is expected to become more prevalent in the upcoming years. However, despite its success, TJA is associated with some complications, including periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). PJI is a devastating complication that is associated with marked patient morbidity and mortality and is an immense economic burden. Although the rate of PJI following a TJA is low, the burden is rising exponentially due to health complications and treatment costs. There are two common types of surgical treatments that can be used to treat chronic PJI, a two-stage exchange arthroplasty and a one-stage exchange arthroplasty. During a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, the implants are removed, infected tissues are debrided and a temporary antibiotic impregnated spacer fashioned from polymethylmethacrylate is placed (stage one). Afterwards the patient undergoes many weeks of intravenous antibiotics, followed by reimplantation at a later date (stage two). During the time between the first and second stage of the revision patients are often immobile, experience severe pain due to a lack of functioning joint, and may experience systemic toxicity associated with the administration of antibiotics. In a one stage exchange arthroplasty, the infected prosthesis is removed, infected tissues are debrided, and a new prosthesis is reimplanted during the same procedure. While the two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the preferred method of treatment for chronic PJI in North America, the one-stage exchange arthroplasty is the method of choice in Europe and some centers have reported comparable results in terms of success for one-stage exchange to two-stage exchange arthroplasty. However, there has been no randomized, prospective, controlled study to date that compares one-stage exchange to two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Because of the lack of comparative outcome reports, and the perceived higher rate of failure of one-stage exchange arthroplasty, surgeons in North America prefer to perform the traditional two-stage exchange arthroplasty for management of chronic PJI. Several teams have succeeded in performing a one-stage exchange arthroplasty in selected patients, but this procedure has not gained much popularity in the US. The purpose of this study is to investigate the outcome of one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty for the management of patients with chronic PJI. The hypothesis of this study is that one-stage exchange arthroplasty, if performed in the appropriate patient population, carries a similar success rate for the treatment of chronic PJI as two-stage exchange arthroplasty and avoids many of the problems associated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Active, not recruiting
Enrollment 343
Est. completion date December 2025
Est. primary completion date December 2024
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender All
Age group 18 Years and older
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Patients >18 years old - Patients who speak English and are willing to sign the consent form - Patients with chronic infection of a total knee or total hip arthroplasty, defined as: - A sinus communicating with the prosthesis - Two positive cultures obtained from the prosthesis - 3 of 5 criteria: (i) Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (>30mm/jr) and c-reactive protein (CRP) (>10mg/L) (ii) Elevated synovial leukocyte count (>3000 cells/µL) or change of ++ on leukocyte esterase strip (iii) Elevated synovial neutrophil percentage (>80%) (iv) One positive culture (v) Positive histological analysis of periprosthetic tissue (>5 neutrophils per high power field in 5 high power fields x400) - Patients with a previous irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infection Exclusion Criteria: - Culture negative infections whereby the infecting organism has not identified - Patients with systemic sepsis who require emergent surgery - Patients with extensive soft tissue involvement that would preclude the closure of the wound after reimplantation, if the patient were to undergo the one-stage exchange - Patients with acute PJI or acute hematogenous PJI, defined as: - Presentation of systems <4 weeks from index procedure - Presentation of systems <4 week duration - Fungal infections - Resistant organisms not sensitive to available IV antibiotics, oral antibiotics, or heat stable antibiotic additives to bone cement with documented elution characteristics - Revision surgery or previous two-stage reimplant - HIV positive patients or patients on chemotherapy

Study Design


Intervention

Procedure:
One-stage exchange joint replacement surgery

Two-stage exchange joint replacement surgery


Locations

Country Name City State
United States OrthoCarolina Research Institue Charlotte North Carolina
United States Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois
United States Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio
United States Hospital for Special Surgery New York New York
United States Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia Pennsylvania

Sponsors (14)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc. Carilion Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Emory University, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, Midwest Orthopaedics Rush University Medical Center, Ochsner Health System, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, The Cleveland Clinic, University of California, San Francisco, University of Iowa, University of Southern California, University of Utah, Vanderbilt University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (17)

Aggarwal VK, Rasouli MR, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: Current concept. Indian J Orthop. 2013 Jan;47(1):10-7. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.106884. — View Citation

Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Morris MJ, Bergeson AG, Adams JB, Sneller MA. Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):510-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2595-x. — View Citation

Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Feb;84(2):171-7. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200202000-00002. — View Citation

Buechel FF, Femino FP, D'Alessio J. Primary exchange revision arthroplasty for infected total knee replacement: a long-term study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2004 Apr;33(4):190-8; discussion 198. — View Citation

Daigle ME, Weinstein AM, Katz JN, Losina E. The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012 Oct;26(5):649-58. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2012.07.013. — View Citation

Diaz-Ledezma C, Higuera CA, Parvizi J. Success after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a Delphi-based international multidisciplinary consensus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul;471(7):2374-82. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2866-1. Epub 2013 Feb 26. — View Citation

El Helou OC, Berbari EF, Marculescu CE, El Atrouni WI, Razonable RR, Steckelberg JM, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR. Outcome of enterococcal prosthetic joint infection: is combination systemic therapy superior to monotherapy? Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1;47(7):903-9. doi: 10.1086/591536. — View Citation

Leunig M, Chosa E, Speck M, Ganz R. A cement spacer for two-stage revision of infected implants of the hip joint. Int Orthop. 1998;22(4):209-14. doi: 10.1007/s002640050244. — View Citation

Luu A, Syed F, Raman G, Bhalla A, Muldoon E, Hadley S, Smith E, Rao M. Two-stage arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review of acute kidney injury, systemic toxicity and infection control. J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct;28(9):1490-8.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.035. Epub 2013 Apr 8. — View Citation

Nickinson RS, Board TN, Gambhir AK, Porter ML, Kay PR. The microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010 Apr;34(4):505-10. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0797-y. Epub 2009 May 21. — View Citation

Parkinson RW, Kay PR, Rawal A. A case for one-stage revision in infected total knee arthroplasty? Knee. 2011 Jan;18(1):1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.04.008. Epub 2010 Aug 17. — View Citation

Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Adeli B. Periprosthetic joint infection: treatment options. Orthopedics. 2010 Sep 7;33(9):659. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100722-42. — View Citation

Pattyn C, De Geest T, Ackerman P, Audenaert E. Preformed gentamicin spacers in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty: functional results and complications. Int Orthop. 2011 Oct;35(10):1471-6. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1172-8. Epub 2010 Nov 30. — View Citation

Singer J, Merz A, Frommelt L, Fink B. High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 May;470(5):1461-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2174-6. Epub 2011 Nov 12. — View Citation

Ure KJ, Amstutz HC, Nasser S, Schmalzried TP. Direct-exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of infection after total hip replacement. An average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Jul;80(7):961-8. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199807000-00004. — View Citation

von Foerster G, Kluber D, Kabler U. [Mid- to long-term results after treatment of 118 cases of periprosthetic infections after knee joint replacement using one-stage exchange surgery]. Orthopade. 1991 Jun;20(3):244-52. German. — View Citation

Zmistowski B, Karam JA, Durinka JB, Casper DS, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Dec 18;95(24):2177-84. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00789. — View Citation

* Note: There are 17 references in allClick here to view all references

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Other Death Death within two years of surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection. 2 years
Other Percentage of patients requiring surgical revision for causes other than infection Revision of prosthetic joint for causes other than infection (e.g. hematoma, spacer dislocation). Two years
Primary Recurrence of infection The primary outcome measured will be the recurrence of infection by the same organism or reinfection with a new organism as determined by the criteria using the International Consensus Meeting on PJI (1 year follow-up). 1 year following treatment
Secondary Health Related Quality of Health All patients will complete the Veteran's Rand - 12 (VR-12) which is a general health measure. The VR-12 also yields a health utility measure that can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life years in an economic cost-utility analysis. 2 years following surgery
Secondary Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes Hip patients will complete the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Junior which is a region-specific measure of pain and function of the hip. 2 years following surgery
Secondary Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes Knee patients will complete the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Junior which is a region-specific measure of pain and function of the knee. 2 years following surgery
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Active, not recruiting NCT04096885 - The Inselspital Surgical Cohort Study
Terminated NCT03820648 - Wound Protector Dual-ring Alexis® in Pancreaticoduodenectomy N/A
Completed NCT04067843 - Effect of Photodynamic Treatment on Skin Microbiome. Single Center Study N/A
Terminated NCT04042077 - Delafloxacin IV and OS Administration Compared to Best Available Therapy in Patients With Surgical Site Infections Phase 3
Completed NCT05841576 - Anaesthetic Management Guided by COMET Measurements N/A
Withdrawn NCT05338281 - NPWT for Abdominal Incisions in DIEP Reconstructions: A RCT N/A
Recruiting NCT03042091 - Neomycin and Metronidazole Hydrochloride With or Without Polyethylene Glycol in Reducing Infection in Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery Early Phase 1
Completed NCT01697748 - Prospective Study on Cesarean Wound Outcomes N/A
Terminated NCT01789697 - Text Message Study N/A
Recruiting NCT05966961 - Novosyn® CHD vs Polyglactin 910 Suture to Close Wounds After Emergency or Elective Laparotomy or Laparoscopic Surgery
Recruiting NCT05077592 - Addition of Pre-wound Closure Povidone Iodine Wash Versus Direct Wound Closure Effect on Surgical Site Infections Phase 4
Recruiting NCT05763602 - PVI to Prevent S. Aureus SSI After Fixation of HELEF (POTENT Study) Phase 4
Recruiting NCT05502380 - Broad-spectrum Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Tumor and Infected Orthopedic Surgery Phase 3
Recruiting NCT03221023 - Intrawound Vancomycin Prophylaxis for Neural Stimulator Phase 2/Phase 3
Completed NCT03257202 - Topical Treatment and Prevalence of P. Acnes Phase 2
Completed NCT06154720 - Surgical Site Infection After Episiotomy Repair Related to Routine Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Low-Risk Population
Not yet recruiting NCT04820075 - Efficacy of an Intervention to Improve the Preoperative Shower in Scheduled Surgery N/A
Recruiting NCT03561376 - Zinc Oxide Versus Petrolatum Following Skin Surgery Early Phase 1
Not yet recruiting NCT04496180 - Prevena to Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy N/A
Recruiting NCT04676841 - Wound Contamination During Orthopaedic Surgery