Is Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation Suitable for the Treatment of Acute Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection?

Abstract

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be devastating for the patient and demanding for the surgeon. In acute PJI, attempts are made to retain the prosthesis by debridement of the infected tissue, targeted antibiotic therapy and an exchange of modular components with implant retention (DAIR). There has been sparse research with adjunctive negative pressure wound treatment with wound irrigation (NPWTI) on the treatment outcome. Questions/purposes: The goal was to assess the efficacy of our protocol of DAIR with adjunctive NPWTI in acute PJI and to reduce the need for later additional DAIR and Irrigation and Debridement (I and D). Patients and Methods: Our cohort of 30 patients (31 hips) with acute PJI was divided into two groups based on symptom presentation up to 6 weeks or >6 weeks from prior (index) surgery (acute early or acute late groups, respectively). All received DAIR with an exchange of modular components and NPWTI with polyhexanide instillation, with the goal of bacterial elimination and biofilm elimination. Postoperatively, the patients were followed up clinically and radiographically for a mean of 4.3 years. Results: Of the 31 PJI hips, 19 were early acute and 12 were late acute. In total, 21 hips had no evidence of residual infection, 10 required further surgical revision: 1 due to dislocation and 9 due to infection. Of these nine, seven had a removal of all the components and two were treated with irrigation and debridement (I and D), with the demise of one patient from pneumonia shortly after the procedure. The Kaplan–Meier 60-month revision free implant survival from infection was 73.2% (CI: 58.9–91.0%) and at the final follow up, the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 81.1 ± 11.8 and the mean WOMAC score was 33.3 ± 20.1. Conclusions: Our results are in line with those reported in prior studies. However, the utility of our protocol is inconclusive and needs further evaluation based on our small cohort and the lack of a control group. Level of Evidence: IV.