Treatment of Periprosthetic Infection: Where and Who?

Cover Page

Cite item


The present work is dedicated to analysis and comparison of national and international practice standards for treatment of periprosthetic infection within a context of treatment center and speciality of physicians. The authors made a partial review of medical and legal issues related to the studied topic by the example of Russian Federation, Germany, USA, England. 118 orthopaedic surgeons were surveyed via internet aiming to evaluate the current medical practice in treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection. Survey demonstrated that there are clinical and organizational complexities in the medical care system for patients with PJI. Most often the responders reported difficulties in the medical succession and see the potential solution through creation of a network of large specialized centers. Resulting was the conclusion that physicians of all specialities should be involved in treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection. Treatment scope depends on professionalism of a physician and technical equipment of the clinic and should correspond to the best clinical practices (treatment protocols). Thus, a rapid routing of patient into more specialized hospitals. Implementation of such approach is possible with careful balancing between the quality of medical care and its proximity to the patient.

About the authors

A. P. Sereda

Federal Medical Biological Agency

Author for correspondence.
Andrey P. Sereda — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Deputy Head Russian Federation

V. N. Bogdan

Helios Amper-Klinikum;

Valentin N. Bogdan — Assistant Doctor (resident), Departure of Orthopedic and Spine Surgery, Academic Educational Hospital Germany

M. A. Andrianova

Rosatom Public Corporation for Atomic Energy

Marina A. Andrianova — Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Information Technology Department Russian Federation

M. Berenstein

Joseftal Hospital

Michael Berenstein — MD, PhD Head of Orthopaedic Department Israel


  1. Bemelman M., van Baal M., Yuan J.Z., Leenen L. The Role of Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis in Rib Fixation: A Review. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;49(1):1-8. doi: 10.5090/kjtcs.2016.49.1.1.
  2. Тихилов Р.М., Божкова С.А., Артюх В.А. Перипротезная инфекция в области крупных суставов конечностей. Клинические рекомендации. В кн.: Ортопедия: клинические рекомендации. Под ред. С.П. Миронова. Гл. 39. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2018. С. 719-746.
  3. Артюх В.А., Божкова С.А. Лечение параэндопротезной инфекции тазобедренного сустава (Т84.5; Т84.7; Z96.6). Клинические рекомендации. Утверждены на Всероссийской конференции «Вреденовские чтения» 27.09.2013. Рассмотрены на заседании профильной комиссии 28.10.2013. СПб; 2013, 41 c. Режим доступа:Параэндопротезная%20инфекция%20ТБС.pdf.
  4. Войно-Ясенецкий В.Ф. Очерки гнойной хирургии. М: Биомедгиз; 1934. Voyno-Yasenetskiy V.F. [Essays on purulent surgery]. M: Biomedgiz; 1934.
  5. Материалы Второй международной согласительной конференции по скелетно-мышечной инфекции. Председатели: проф. Дж. Парвизи, проф. Т. Герке. Под общ. ред. Р.М. Тихилова, С.А. Божковой, И.И. Шубнякова. СПб.: РНИИТО им. Р.Р. Вредена, 2019. 314 с.
  6. D’Antonio J.A. Periprosthetic bone loss of the acetabulum: classification and management. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23(2):279-290.
  7. Biant L.C., Teare E.L., Williams W.W., Tuite J.D. Eradication of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus by «ring fencing» of elective orthopaedic beds. BMJ. 2004;329(7458):149-151. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7458.149.
  8. Kelly J.C., O’Briain D.E., Walls R., Lee S.I., O’Rourke A., Mc Cabe J.P. The role of pre-operative assessment and ringfencing of services in the control of methicillin resistant Staphlococcus aureus infection in orthopaedic patients. Surgeon. 2012;10(2):75-79.
  9. Lenguerrand E., Whitehouse M.R., Beswick A.D., Kunutsor S.K., Foguet P., Porter M. et al. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement: an observational cohort study from England and Wales. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(6):589- 600. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30755-2.
  10. Lenguerrand E., Whitehouse M.R., Beswick A.D., Kunutsor S.K., Burston B., Porter M., Blom A.W. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(9):1004-1014. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30345-1.
  11. Labek G., Schoffl H., Meglic M. New medical device regulations ahead – what does that mean for arthroplasty registers? Acta Orthop. 2015;86(1):5-6. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.1002185.
  12. Lübbeke A., Silman A.J., Prieto-Alhambra D., Adler A.I., Barea C., Carr A.J. The role of national registries in improving patient safety for hip and knee replacements. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):414. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1773-0.
  13. Середа А.П., Андрианова М.А. Рекомендации по оформлению дизайна исследования. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2019;25(3):165-184. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-3-165-184.
  14. Parvizi J., Gehrke T., Chen A.F. Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11):1450-1452. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.33135.
  15. Renz N., Perka C., Trampuz A. Management of periprosthetic infections of the knee. Orthopade. 2016;45(1):65-71. doi: 10.1007/s00132-015-3217-6.
  16. Ahrens U., Böcking W., Kirch W. Der optionale Start der G-DRGs im Jahr 2003: Warum entschieden sich Krankenhäuser für die Einführung zum frühen Zeitpunkt? J Public Health. 2004;12:61-71.
  17. Dormann F., Klauber J., Kuhlen R. Qualitätsmonitor 2019. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 2018. 326 p. search?identifier=1002504 (дата обращения: 04.11.2019).
  18. Unfallversicherungsgesetz. Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt Band. 1884;(19):69-111.
  19. Luft H.S., Bunker J.P., Enthoven A.C. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(25):1364-1369.
  20. Li C., Renz N., Trampuz A. Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Hip Pelvis. 2018;30(3):138-146. doi: 10.5371/hp.2018.30.3.138.
  21. Senard O., Houselstein T., Crémieux A.C. Reasons for Litigation in Arthroplasty Infections and Lessons Learned. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(20):1806-1811. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00101.

Copyright (c)

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies