# The PJI-TNM Classification as Predictor for Revision-Free Implant Survival Rates in Patients with Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip or Knee Joint

## TL;DR

This study evaluates how well the PJI-TNM classification predicts implant survival in patients with joint infections after surgery.

## Contribution

The study validates the PJI-TNM classification as a potential tool for predicting implant survival in periprosthetic joint infections.

## Key findings

- Patients with T1 classification (loosened implants without soft-tissue defects) had the highest revision-free implant survival.
- Patients classified as M3 (no surgical treatment possible) had worse outcomes compared to M0, M1, or M2.
- PJI-TNM classification allows over 500 combinations and may help compare patient outcomes.

## Abstract

Background: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain a major challenge in arthroplasty. This study tries to evaluate the PJI-TNM classification as predictor for the revision-free implant survival in patients with PJI of the hip or knee joint. Methods: To this end, we perform a retrospective study of all consecutive patients with PJI of an inlying hip or knee arthroplasty between January 2015 and December 2019. Results: A total of 443 cases (hip: n = 247; knee n = 196) were identified. In total, 439 patients underwent surgery (DAIR: n = 138 cases (31%), explantation: n = 272 (61%), irrigation with debridement without exchange of implant components: n = 29 (6.5%)). Four patients refused surgical treatment and 39.5% were lost to follow-up. In total, 78 patients died during follow-up and 27 deaths were directly related to PJI/complications during treatment. Patients with inlying “standard”-implants (p < 0.001) and without previous history of PJI (p = 0.002) displayed a significantly higher postoperative revision-free implant survival. In terms of the PJI-TNM subclassification, patients with loosened implants but without soft-tissue defects (T1) displayed the highest revision-free implant survival. In contrast, patients classified as M3 (no surgical treatment possible) displayed an inferior outcome compared to M0, M1, or M2. Patients with different N-subclassifications (“non-human cells”/causative pathogen) did not display differences in revision-free implant survival. Conclusions: The PJI-TNM classification is well suited to classify PJIs. Its complexity allows for more than 500 different combinations of classifications. Further validation data are needed, but to us, the PJI-TNM classification seems to offer the possibility of comparing patients with PJIs. It may, therefore, be a very valuable tool in order to compare cohorts with PJIs and provide individual data for patient specific outcomes.