Latest / Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast. / Shoulder PJI Staged Revision With Antibiotic Spacers

Transcript

Shoulder PJI Staged Revision With Antibiotic Spacers · Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast.

• 0:00
  Imagine facing a persistent infection after shoulder
• 0:03
  replacement surgery. Well, it's a surgeon's nightmare,
• 0:07
  isn't it? And a patient's ongoing struggle. Absolutely.
• 0:09
  But one treatment approach, this two -stage revision
• 0:12
  with antibiotic spacers, it's shown really remarkable
• 0:15
  success rates. I mean, as high as 95 % in getting
• 0:19
  that infection under control. That's right. The
• 0:21
  control rates can be very good. Yet, as often
• 0:23
  happens in complex surgery, getting rid of the
• 0:26
  infection, that's really only part of the story.
• 0:28
  Does it restore function? What are the costs?
• 0:30
  The complications? Exactly. Function is key.
• 0:32
  And that's what this deep dive is all about,
• 0:35
  unpacking that complexity. Welcome to the deep
• 0:38
  dive, the show where we take your sources, the
• 0:40
  latest research papers, essential articles, even
• 0:42
  your own detailed notes, and extract the most
• 0:45
  important nuggets of knowledge or insight. Think
• 0:48
  of it as your shortcut to being truly well informed
• 0:51
  on a critical topic. Today, we're diving deep
• 0:54
  into a significant research paper focusing on
• 0:57
  treating infected shoulder prostheses using precisely
• 0:59
  that two -stage revision approach. And who better
• 1:02
  to guide us through this material than one of
• 1:04
  the authors of the paper itself? We're joined
• 1:06
  today by Professor Mo Imam, an orthopedic expert
• 1:09
  with an extensive publication record. He brings,
• 1:12
  well, unparalleled insight directly from the
• 1:14
  source. It's brilliant to have you here. Thank
• 1:16
  you. It's a pleasure to be here and discuss the
• 1:17
  work. Great. Let's jump straight in then with
• 1:19
  a rapid -fire setup to frame our conversation.
• 1:22
  First question. Shoulder periprosthetic joint
• 1:24
  infection, PJI. Why is this particular type of
• 1:28
  infection often considered, well, more challenging
• 1:31
  to treat than PJIs in, say, the knee or hip?
• 1:34
  Yes, that's a critical starting point. Shoulder
• 1:37
  PJI, it really does present some unique difficulties.
• 1:40
  A major factor is the microbiology. So alongside
• 1:43
  more common organisms like coagulus negative
• 1:45
  staphylococci, we frequently encounter propionobacterium
• 1:49
  agnes. or P. acnes, as it's often called now,
• 1:52
  cutie -bacterium axes. Now, while it's often
• 1:54
  less virulent than, say, Staphylococcus aureus,
• 1:57
  which you see more often in knee and hip PJIs,
• 2:00
  P. acnes can be notoriously subtle in its presentation.
• 2:04
  Sometimes pain is the primary or even the only
• 2:07
  symptom. The only symptom. That must make diagnosis
• 2:10
  quite elusive. It does. You can't always rely
• 2:12
  on those classic signs of infection. And then,
• 2:15
  both P. acnes and other organisms, they readily
• 2:17
  form biofilms on the implant surface. This protective
• 2:20
  layer, it sort of shields the bacteria from antibiotics,
• 2:23
  making them incredibly persistent, difficult
• 2:25
  to eradicate without surgery, and crucially,
• 2:27
  local antibiotic delivery. Subtle presentation
• 2:30
  and stubborn biofilms understood. Okay, second
• 2:33
  rapid question. The paper focuses on a two -stage
• 2:35
  revision using antibiotic spacers. In brief,
• 2:38
  what does that process actually entail? Well,
• 2:40
  it's essentially a sequence. It's designed to
• 2:42
  eradicate the infection before re -implanting
• 2:44
  a new prosthesis. So stage one involves removing
• 2:47
  the infected implant completely, meticulously
• 2:50
  cleaning out all the infected tissue that's the
• 2:52
  debridement, and then inserting a temporary cement
• 2:54
  spacer. A spacer. Yes, and the spacer acts as
• 2:57
  a local depot. It eludes high concentrations
• 3:00
  of antibiotics directly into the infected site.
• 3:02
  And of course, systemic antibiotics are given
• 3:04
  as well. And stage two. What happens then? Stage
• 3:08
  two is performed once we believe the infection
• 3:10
  is cleared and the patient has completed their
• 3:13
  course of antibiotics. It involves removing that
• 3:15
  temporary spacer and then implanting a new definitive
• 3:18
  prosthesis. The goal really is to put a sterile
• 3:21
  implant into what is now hopefully a sterile
• 3:24
  environment. Two distinct stages then aimed at
• 3:26
  clearing the infection first. Right. Final rapid
• 3:29
  -fire question. What was the single most important
• 3:32
  finding from this specific research regarding
• 3:34
  the control of the infection itself? I'd say
• 3:36
  the headline result from this particular series
• 3:38
  is the high rate of infection control we achieved
• 3:41
  with this two -stage approach. We saw successful
• 3:45
  eradication in 36 out of the 38 patients available
• 3:48
  for the final analysis. 36 out of 38, which translates
• 3:52
  to an impressive 95 percent success rate based
• 3:55
  on the defined criteria we use. Ninety five percent
• 3:57
  infection control. That's a really powerful statistic.
• 4:00
  But how do you get there and what's the full
• 4:03
  picture beyond just eradicating the bug? Let's
• 4:06
  dive deeper into the process, the challenges
• 4:09
  and importantly, the patient outcomes in this
• 4:11
  core segment. Let's do that. So diving deeper
• 4:14
  into that challenge you mentioned earlier, the
• 4:16
  source material makes it quite clear that shoulder
• 4:18
  PGI is Well, it's feared by surgeons. It is,
• 4:21
  yes. You highlighted the common organisms found
• 4:23
  in this study. Coagulase negative, Staphylococci,
• 4:26
  that was 42%, and P. acnes at 33%. That's correct.
• 4:30
  And that point about P. acnes being less virulent,
• 4:32
  but often causing only pain for clinicians listening,
• 4:35
  that sounds like a crucial diagnostic trap to
• 4:38
  avoid, doesn't it? Absolutely. It really is.
• 4:40
  You simply cannot wait for the typical signs
• 4:42
  of sepsis or acute inflammation sometimes. Persistent,
• 4:46
  unexplained pain in a prosthetic shoulder. must
• 4:50
  raise suspicion for a low -grade infection, particularly
• 4:53
  P. acnes. And then, as we discussed, the biofilm
• 4:57
  protects these bacteria, making surgical intervention
• 5:00
  almost always necessary for eradication. You
• 5:02
  can't just rely on antibiotics alone, usually.
• 5:05
  And the two -stage strategy is built specifically
• 5:07
  to address that biofilm and the persistent infection.
• 5:10
  Tell us a bit more about stage one as it was
• 5:12
  actually performed in the study. You removed
• 5:14
  the prosthesis, did the debridement, and implanted
• 5:17
  that handmade cement spacer loaded with gentamicin
• 5:20
  and vancomycin. What was the post -operative
• 5:23
  antibiotic regimen like? OK, so the protocol
• 5:25
  involved two weeks of intravenous antibiotic
• 5:28
  therapy initially. This was often adjusted based
• 5:30
  on the culture results once the specific organism
• 5:32
  was identified. Kalared therapy. Yes. And this
• 5:35
  IV course was followed by a pretty substantial
• 5:37
  course of oral antibiotics, typically lasting
• 5:39
  for 10 weeks. So the combination approach local
• 5:41
  delivery from the spacer and a prolonged systemic
• 5:44
  course. Ten weeks oral after two weeks four.
• 5:48
  That's quite a commitment for the patient. It
• 5:50
  is indeed. Compliance is obviously key. Then
• 5:52
  stage two, the re -implantation. The paper notes
• 5:55
  that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, or
• 5:57
  TSA, was the default for most patients. 26 cases,
• 6:02
  I think? That's right, 26. But hemiathroplasty,
• 6:05
  HA, was used as a sort of salvage option for
• 6:09
  severe glenoid bone loss in a smaller number,
• 6:12
  eight cases. All right. And quite significantly,
• 6:15
  14 patients didn't actually proceed to stage
• 6:17
  two at all. They retained the spacer permanently.
• 6:20
  Why was that? Well, the decision for the definitive
• 6:24
  implant, or indeed whether to implant one at
• 6:26
  all, was dictated by several factors. Things
• 6:28
  like the extent of bone loss, particularly on
• 6:30
  the glenoid side, which can be severely compromised
• 6:33
  after infection, and the spacer implantation
• 6:35
  itself. Right, the socket side. Exactly. And
• 6:38
  also the patient's overall medical fitness or
• 6:40
  sometimes their willingness or lack thereof for
• 6:42
  further major surgery. RTSA generally offers
• 6:45
  better function in many scenarios, but it simply
• 6:47
  isn't possible without adequate bone stock to
• 6:50
  support it. HA and retaining the spacer were
• 6:53
  fallback options for the most difficult situations
• 6:55
  or less fit patients. Essentially, yes. HA for
• 6:59
  severe bone loss where RTSA wasn't feasible.
• 7:02
  And retaining the spacer for those unable or
• 7:05
  unwilling to undergo the second stage. And the
• 7:07
  study population itself, 48 patients treated
• 7:10
  initially, 38 available for analysis at a minimum
• 7:13
  of 24 months follow -up. It's mentioned that
• 7:16
  40 of the 48 were referrals from elsewhere for
• 7:19
  PJI treatment. That tells us something, doesn't
• 7:21
  it? These were likely already complex established
• 7:23
  infections. Indeed. That's a very important point.
• 7:26
  These were challenging cases, often patients
• 7:29
  who had undergone previous surgeries. They weren't
• 7:31
  typically primary PJIs presenting early and otherwise
• 7:35
  healthy patients. They were often tertiary referrals.
• 7:38
  Which makes the 95 % infection control rate perhaps
• 7:41
  even more impressive. Well, it certainly highlights
• 7:43
  the effectiveness of the approach in a difficult
• 7:45
  cohort. How did you rigorously define and confirm
• 7:48
  infection control in this study? What was the
• 7:51
  diagnostic process involved? OK, so infection
• 7:54
  control was defined by the absence of the recognized
• 7:57
  musculoskeletal infection society. the MSIS criteria
• 8:01
  for PGI at the final follow -up point. The standard
• 8:04
  criteria. Yes. And the diagnosis itself relied
• 8:07
  heavily on careful microbiological workup during
• 8:10
  the surgeries. This involved taking multiple
• 8:12
  tissue samples. We stipulated a minimum of three
• 8:15
  and culturing them on different media, both anaerobic
• 8:17
  and aerobic, and crucially incubating them for
• 8:21
  at least 10 days. Ah, the 10 -day incubation
• 8:24
  period again. That seems like a really vital
• 8:26
  nugget of information for anyone in a lab or
• 8:29
  clinic dealing with suspected shoulder PGI, doesn't
• 8:31
  it? Especially for P. acnes. It is absolutely
• 8:34
  critical. We can't stress that enough. Shorter
• 8:36
  incubation times, say the standard five or seven
• 8:39
  days, risk missing these low -growing organisms
• 8:41
  like P. acnes. And if you miss it. If you don't
• 8:43
  identify the pathogen, you can't target the antibiotic
• 8:46
  therapy effectively. It compromises your chances
• 8:48
  of eradication. So yes, extended culture time
• 8:51
  is non -negotiable for a thorough diagnosis in
• 8:53
  this specific setting. Makes perfect sense. And
• 8:56
  as you mentioned, despite all these careful steps,
• 8:59
  the headline result was 95 % infection control
• 9:02
  in 36 out of 38 patients analyzed. Remarkable
• 9:06
  success for such a difficult problem. What happened
• 9:09
  in the two cases where control wasn't ultimately
• 9:12
  achieved? Yes, it's important to look at the
• 9:14
  failures too. In one case, it was a persistent
• 9:16
  P. acnes infection after the re -implantation
• 9:19
  stage. This was in an older patient with a history
• 9:22
  of steroid use, which can be a risk factor. The
• 9:25
  other failure was a persistent coagulase negative
• 9:28
  staphylococcus infection, also after re -implantation.
• 9:31
  In both instances, the patients experienced ongoing
• 9:34
  pain, but unfortunately declined further surgical
• 9:37
  intervention. Right, and that's another factor,
• 9:39
  isn't it, in managing these complex cases, patient
• 9:41
  choice, and their tolerance for surgical risk,
• 9:43
  especially after multiple procedures? Precisely.
• 9:46
  High success rate, but not absolutely guaranteed,
• 9:48
  and patient factors certainly play a significant
• 9:50
  role in the final outcome. Okay, so infection
• 9:53
  control is paramount, and the results look good
• 9:55
  there. But functional recovery is often the patient's
• 9:58
  main priority, isn't it? How did the study actually
• 10:01
  measure how well patients' shoulders were working
• 10:04
  and feeling after all this treatment? We use
• 10:06
  standard validated scoring systems, primarily
• 10:10
  the constant Murley score and also the relative
• 10:13
  constant score, which adjusts for age and gender,
• 10:16
  making comparisons a bit fairer. We also use
• 10:18
  the subjective shoulder value SSV, where the
• 10:21
  patient rates their shoulder function themselves
• 10:24
  on a percentage scale from 0 to 100. And of course,
• 10:27
  the pain score, which is part of the constant
• 10:29
  assessment. And when were these measured? These
• 10:31
  were measured before the first stage, so baseline
• 10:33
  pretreatment, and then again at the latest follow
• 10:36
  -up point. That was either after the second stage
• 10:38
  re -implantation or, for those who didn't have
• 10:41
  a second stage, after the spacer implantation
• 10:43
  when follow -up concluded. Right. Looking at
• 10:46
  all patients treated with spacers, regardless
• 10:48
  of the final step, what did the overall group's
• 10:51
  functional outcome show? Was there improvement?
• 10:53
  Yes. For the entire cohort treated with the spacer
• 10:56
  protocol. So lumping everyone together initially,
• 11:00
  there was this statistically significant improvement
• 11:02
  in the overall constant scores, the relative
• 11:05
  constant scores, the subjective shoulder value,
• 11:08
  and importantly in their pain scores compared
• 11:10
  to their pre -treatment levels. So as a group,
• 11:13
  the treatment did improve symptoms and function
• 11:15
  overall. Correct. On average, patients felt better
• 11:18
  and functioned better than before the treatment
• 11:20
  started. Okay, overall improvement is good news.
• 11:22
  But this is where, as you say, the devil is often
• 11:24
  in the detail. What did the functional outcomes
• 11:27
  look like when you broke them down by the type
• 11:29
  of final treatment? So comparing the RTSA group
• 11:32
  versus the hemi -arthroplasty group versus those
• 11:35
  who just retained the spacer. This is where it
• 11:37
  gets really interesting, I think. Indeed it is.
• 11:39
  This is where we saw quite marked differences.
• 11:42
  Patients who completed the full stage process
• 11:44
  and received a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty,
• 11:47
  the RTSA, in the second stage showed a significant
• 11:50
  functional improvement. Their mean constant scores
• 11:54
  increased notably, from about 31 pre -op to 51
• 11:57
  post -op. A definite jump there. Yes. However,
• 12:00
  those patients who received a hemiarthroplasty
• 12:02
  in the second stage, and also those who permanently
• 12:05
  retained the cement spacer, did not show statistically
• 12:08
  significant improvement in their constant and
• 12:10
  Murley scores. No significant improvement in
• 12:13
  those two groups. That's right. For the HA group,
• 12:15
  the mean score went from about 22 to 24, basically
• 12:18
  unchanged. For the spacer group, it went from
• 12:21
  18 up to 35, which sounds like an increase, but
• 12:25
  the p -value was 0 .093, so it didn't meet the
• 12:28
  threshold for statistical significance in our
• 12:30
  analysis. Wow. That functional disparity between
• 12:33
  the RTSA group and the others is really quite
• 12:36
  stark. Does this finding mean that RTSA is inherently
• 12:39
  functionally superior for these PGI cases? Or
• 12:43
  perhaps that HA, or just retaining the spacer,
• 12:46
  are simply poor options for function after infection?
• 12:49
  That's a really crucial point of interpretation,
• 12:52
  and one the authors, including myself, discussed
• 12:54
  at length. The functional difference wasn't necessarily
• 12:57
  simply due to the type of implant itself. The
• 13:00
  significant factor was almost certainly the baseline
• 13:02
  condition of the patient and their shoulder.
• 13:04
  Patients who ended up receiving an HA typically
• 13:07
  had severe glenoid bone loss, as we discussed.
• 13:10
  That necessitated using it as a salvage option.
• 13:14
  Their potential for functional recovery was already
• 13:16
  limited from the very start, regardless of the
• 13:19
  implant. Because the foundation wasn't there.
• 13:21
  Precisely. Similarly, patients who retained the
• 13:24
  spacer often did so because of significant medical
• 13:27
  comorbidities or being deemed unfit or inoperable
• 13:31
  for a second stage. Again, this selects for a
• 13:34
  group with lower baseline functional potential
• 13:36
  and perhaps lower demands. I see. So the key
• 13:40
  takeaway here isn't necessarily that RTSA causes
• 13:42
  better function in PJI, but more likely that
• 13:45
  the patients who were actually eligible for an
• 13:47
  RTSA in stage two were already a different, perhaps
• 13:51
  healthier cohort with better underlying bone
• 13:53
  stock to begin with. Exactly that. Their better
• 13:55
  starting point allowed for greater functional
• 13:57
  recovery potential. The patient's initial condition
• 14:00
  seems to be the major predictor of the functional
• 14:02
  gain you can achieve, particularly in those most
• 14:04
  compromised cases where options are limited.
• 14:06
  That makes a lot of sense. It's about the patient
• 14:08
  factors as much as, or maybe even more than,
• 14:11
  the hardware choice in the end stage for these
• 14:14
  really complex cases. It highlights the critical
• 14:17
  importance of patient selection, managing expectations
• 14:20
  realistically based on their initial condition,
• 14:22
  the state of their bone, particularly the glenoid,
• 14:25
  and their overall health. Now, the paper also
• 14:28
  highlights complications. This is complex, high
• 14:31
  -risk surgery. We know that. What was the complication
• 14:34
  rate actually like in this series? Well, unfortunately,
• 14:37
  and perhaps unsurprisingly, given the nature
• 14:39
  of the problem, complications were common. They
• 14:41
  occurred in 58 % of the patients in this study
• 14:45
  cohort. 58 %? That's more than half. It is. It
• 14:48
  really underscores the inherent difficulty and
• 14:50
  the significant morbidity associated with treating
• 14:53
  established shoulder PGI. This high rate also
• 14:56
  led to a substantial number of patients requiring
• 14:58
  further revision surgery down the line. 35 %
• 15:01
  overall needed more operations. Wow, 58 % complication
• 15:05
  rate and 35 % needing further revision. That's
• 15:08
  substantial. What were the most frequent complications
• 15:10
  that you observed? The most common issues we
• 15:12
  documented included things like progressive glenoid
• 15:15
  destruction, bone loss on the socket side, occurring
• 15:18
  after the spacer was implanted but before re
• 15:20
  -implantation, also post -operative hematoma,
• 15:24
  subsequent shoulder instability after re -implantation,
• 15:27
  wound healing problems, which are always a concern,
• 15:30
  aseptic loosening of the eventual implant, meaning
• 15:33
  loosening not due to infection, and periprosthetic
• 15:35
  fractures around the implant or bone. The rates
• 15:38
  did vary slightly across the subgroups, but that
• 15:41
  overall figure of 58 % is a clear reminder of
• 15:44
  the challenges involved here. Definitely sobering
• 15:46
  figures. The study also, quite rightly, acknowledges
• 15:50
  its own limitations. What are the key points
• 15:52
  the authors mention there? Yes, we were upfront
• 15:54
  about those. Firstly, it's a retrospective study,
• 15:57
  meaning we look back at data already collected
• 15:59
  rather than a prospective trial designed from
• 16:01
  the start. That has inherent limitations. As
• 16:04
  we've just discussed at length, we highlighted
• 16:06
  the significant baseline differences between
• 16:08
  the treatment subgroups RTSA, HA, SPACER, DATA
• 16:11
  as a major limitation when trying to directly
• 16:14
  compare their functional outcomes. There weren't
• 16:16
  equivalent groups to start with. The relatively
• 16:19
  small numbers in the HA and the SPACER subgroups
• 16:22
  also limit the statistical power of those specific
• 16:25
  analyses. You have to be cautious interpreting
• 16:28
  results from small groups. And finally, there
• 16:30
  was some loss to follow up. About 21 % of the
• 16:34
  original cohort couldn't be included in the final
• 16:37
  analysis for various reasons, which is quite
• 16:39
  common in long -term surgical studies, but still
• 16:41
  a limitation to acknowledge. Understood. So pulling
• 16:44
  all this together now, the study confirms that
• 16:46
  this two -stage approach is highly effective
• 16:48
  for infection control, achieving that 95 % rate.
• 16:52
  But functional recovery seems strongly linked
• 16:54
  to patient factors and whether they can actually
• 16:57
  proceed to an RTSA. What are the broader implications
• 17:01
  of this for orthopedic surgeons who are considering
• 17:03
  treatment options for shoulder PGI? Well, I think
• 17:06
  it clearly validates the potential for a high
• 17:08
  success rate in terms of infection eradication
• 17:11
  using this demanding two -stage pathway, even
• 17:14
  in complex referral cases. That's a positive
• 17:16
  message. However, the discussion section in the
• 17:19
  paper thoughtfully brings up the comparison to
• 17:21
  single -stage exchange procedures. Right, doing
• 17:23
  it all in one operation. Exactly. Some studies
• 17:26
  investigating single -stage exchange, particularly
• 17:29
  perhaps for less virulent organism or different
• 17:32
  patient groups, report comparable infection control
• 17:35
  rates to the two -stage method. So given the
• 17:38
  high complication rate we saw, the patient burden
• 17:41
  of multiple surgeries inherent in the two -stage
• 17:43
  method, especially if the specific pathogen isn't
• 17:46
  known right at the beginning. Well, the single
• 17:49
  stage approach becomes a very significant point
• 17:52
  of comparison and ongoing debate. It really highlights
• 17:55
  that tension, doesn't it? Balancing the absolute
• 17:57
  priority of getting rid of the infection versus
• 18:00
  the goal of restoring function and minimizing
• 18:02
  the overall impact and risk to the patient. That's
• 18:05
  precisely the crux of it. It's not just about
• 18:07
  clearing the infection anymore, although that
• 18:09
  remains critical. It's about finding the optimal
• 18:11
  path, the best strategy for achieving a functional
• 18:14
  outcome with the lowest acceptable risk profile
• 18:16
  for that specific individual patient. It forces
• 18:19
  a really careful individualized assessment, doesn't
• 18:21
  it? Looking at the patient's overall health,
• 18:23
  the specific bug involved, the state of their
• 18:25
  bone, and what they can realistically tolerate
• 18:27
  and ultimately benefit from. Exactly. There's
• 18:30
  no single one -size -fits -all answer in treating
• 18:34
  shoulder PJI. Let's run through a quick lightning
• 18:36
  round then for some rapid -fire takeaways based
• 18:38
  directly on this research. Quickest win for infection
• 18:41
  control, according to this study. The two -stage
• 18:43
  method itself. It yielded that 95 % success rate
• 18:48
  for eradication. Most common culprits identified
• 18:51
  in this particular cohort. Coagulus negative
• 18:53
  staphylococci and P. acnes were the top two.
• 18:57
  Biggest predictor of functional improvement noted
• 18:59
  in this study. It seemed to be the patient's
• 19:02
  underlying condition and their bone stock, specifically
• 19:05
  whether it allowed for an RTSA to be performed
• 19:08
  in the second stage. A key diagnostic consideration
• 19:11
  highlighted for shoulder PGI, especially when
• 19:14
  you suspect P -acnes. Extended culture times
• 19:16
  are crucial, at least 10 days incubation. And
• 19:19
  one major challenge reeled starkly by the complication
• 19:21
  rates. The significant inherent morbidity. The
• 19:24
  risk of complications and the potential need
• 19:26
  for further surgery remain very high in treating
• 19:29
  these complex infections. Excellent summary points.
• 19:32
  Okay, let's crystallize the core actionable takeaways
• 19:35
  from this deep dive for our listeners. What should
• 19:38
  they really remember from this? Okay. Firstly,
• 19:41
  this study reinforces that two -stage resission
• 19:43
  using antibiotic spacers is a highly effective
• 19:46
  method for controlling shoulder PGI, achieving
• 19:49
  a 95 % success rate in this particular series
• 19:52
  of complex cases. Good. Takeaway number two.
• 19:55
  Secondly, restoring good shoulder function after
• 19:58
  treating PGI appears to be strongly linked to
• 20:00
  the patient's suitability for receiving a reverse
• 20:03
  total shoulder arthroplasty in the second stage.
• 20:06
  and that suitability is largely driven by their
• 20:09
  underlying condition and bone quality. Thirdly,
• 20:13
  baseline patient factors, particularly the extent
• 20:15
  of glenoid bone destruction, significantly influence
• 20:18
  both the treatment pathway that can be chosen
• 20:20
  and the ultimate potential for functional recovery.
• 20:23
  This is often more critical than the specific
• 20:25
  implant used in the most challenging salvage
• 20:27
  situations. Fourthly, accurate diagnosis of shoulder
• 20:32
  PGI requires diligent protocols. Especially important
• 20:36
  is using extended culture times of at least 10
• 20:39
  days, particularly to detect those slow growing
• 20:42
  organisms like P. acnes. Don't miss the bug.
• 20:45
  Crucial point. Fifth. Fifthly, be aware that
• 20:48
  this is complex surgery with a notable risk of
• 20:50
  complications. Nearly 60 % in this series experience
• 20:54
  one, and there's a significant chance around
• 20:56
  35 % of needing further revision surgery down
• 20:59
  the track. Finally, the study's discussion and
• 21:02
  our conversation today really prompts important
• 21:04
  consideration of alternative strategies like
• 21:07
  single -stage revision. These might offer comparable
• 21:09
  infection control with potentially less patient
• 21:12
  burden in certain situations, highlighting the
• 21:14
  ongoing need to evaluate the optimal approach
• 21:16
  for different PGI scenarios in patients. Professor
• 21:19
  Immam, thank you so much for guiding us through
• 21:21
  this research and providing such clear, really
• 21:23
  insightful analysis. Your expertise as an author
• 21:26
  on the paper has been absolutely invaluable.
• 21:28
  It was my pleasure entirely. Glad to discuss
• 21:29
  it. If you found this deep dive valuable, please
• 21:32
  do consider leaving a rating or perhaps sharing
• 21:34
  it with a colleague on LinkedIn or X. And to
• 21:37
  leave you with a final thought based on our discussion
• 21:39
  today, given the high infection control rate
• 21:41
  with those variable functional outcomes and the
• 21:43
  significant complication risks associated with
• 21:45
  this two -stage approach, how should we as an
• 21:48
  orthopedic community best balance that aggressive
• 21:50
  infection eradication with the equally crucial
• 21:53
  goals of functional restoration and minimizing
• 21:55
  patient burden in these incredibly complex shoulder
• 21:58
  PJI cases? cases. Something come all over. That's
• 22:01
  all for this deep dive. Join us next time as
• 22:04
  we unpack another stack of sources.