EC Clinical and Medical Case Reports

Background: Persistent wound drainage remains a challenging and debatable topic. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are significantly higher in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. Early and prompt treatment is important in managing persistent wound drainage to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection.

Materials and Methods: Using categorization from the Parvizi., et al. study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients who presented with persistent wound drainage following total joint arthroplasty. Three of our patients underwent surgical debridement and joint washout and required an additional intravenous antibiotic. For wounds that are still draining five to seven days after the index surgery, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on periprosthetic joint infection advocates surgical drainage and debridement with a modular component exchange. In this work, we discuss two dressing options: PICO, a single-use, negative-pressure, wound therapy device; and OPSITE, a visible, waterproof, bacteria-proof, postoperative method.

Results: Leakage of the arthroplasty wound continued to cause ptients anxiety. In selected patients, careful clinical assessment in conjunction with close clinical surveillance is likely to lower the incidence of reoperation, as well as the related morbidity and cost.

Conclusion: Weighing risks and benefits is a crucial step in managing patients with persistent wound drainage. The best time to begin nonsurgical or surgical treatment has yet to be determined. Early identification is critical to reduce morbidity and complications.

 Keywords: Arthroplasty; Debridement; Intravenous Antibiotic; Joint Infection; Persistent Wound Drainage

1. Wagenaar FCBM., et al. “Persistent wound drainage after total joint arthroplasty: A narrative review”. The Journal of Arthroplasty 34 (2019): 175-182.
2. Jaberi FM., et al. “Procrastination of wound drainage and malnutrition affect the outcome of joint arthroplasty”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 466 (2008): 1368-1371.
3. Patel VP., et al. “Factors associated with prolonged wound drainage after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 89 (2007): 33-38.
4. Singh V., et al. “Persistent wound drainage among total joint arthroplasty patients receiving aspirin vs coumadin”. The Journal of Arthroplasty 35 (2020): 3743-3746.
5. Azamgarhi T., et al. “Risk factors for recurrent infection in the surgical treatment of infected massive endoprostheses implanted for musculoskeletal tumours”. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18 (2023): 1-12.
6. Parvizi J., et al. “Proceedings of the international consensus on periprosthetic joint infection”. The Bone and Joint Journal 95 (2013): 1450-1452.
7. Koressel J., et al. “Wound complications following revision total knee arthroplasty: Prevalence and outcomes”. The Knee 42 (2023): 44-50.
8. Scheper H., et al. “Wound drainage after arthroplasty and prediction of acute prosthetic joint infection: Prospective data from a multicentre cohort study using a telemonitoring app”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Infection 8 (2023): 59-70.
9. Safavi S., et al. “Additively manufactured controlled porous orthopedic joint replacement designs to reduce bone stress shielding: A systematic review”. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18 (2023): 1-23.
10. Ghanem E., et al. “Wound management”. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 32 (2014): S108-S119.
11. Surin VV., et al. “Infection after total hip replacement. With special reference to a discharge from the wound”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British 65 (1983): 412-418.
12. Eriksson E., et al. “Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus”. Wound Repair and Regeneration 30 (2022): 156-171.
13. Bartosz P., et al. “A prospective randomized study, use of closed suction drainage after revision hip arthroplasty may lead to excessive blood loss”. Scientific Reports 12 (2022): 881.
14. Bourget-Murray J., et al. “Is the routine use of local antibiotics in the management of periprosthetic joint infections Justified?” HIP International 33 (2023): 4-16.
15. Mian HM., et al. “A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty”. Arthroplasty 4 (2022): 1-12.
16. Karlakki SL., et al. “Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: A randomised controlled trial”. BJR Bone and Joint Research 5 (2016): 328-337.
17. Crowley DJ., et al. “Irrigation of the wounds in open fractures”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British 89 (2007): 580-585.
18. Weiss APC and Krackow KA. “Persistent wound drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty”. The Journal of Arthroplasty 8 (1993): 285-289.
19. Lonner JH and Lotke PA. “Aseptic Complications after total knee arthroplasty”. JAAOS - Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 7 (1999): 311-324.