Introduction Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) pose significant clinical challenges due to biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance. Standard treatment often involves implant removal and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Novel strategies target intracellular pathogens and biofilm-associated bacteria, including liposomal antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides, and bacteriophage therapy. Bacteriophages offer specificity and minimal disruption to human microbiota but remain experimental in PJI. Combining phages with targeted antibiotics shows promising results in preclinical models, though further research is needed to confirm efficacy in human PJI and optimise delivery methods. Objectives This study updates the current evidence on the use of bacteriophages for patients with PJI, proposing guidelines for their clinical application. Method PubMed was searched for articles containing phage therapy in revision arthroplasty. No additional filters or time constraints were used. All eligible studies were accessed by hand. Results A total of 39 studies (20 clinical, 19 reviews) on phage therapy for PJI were analysed, covering 56 patients. Of those, negative outcomes were only reported in five. Most studies involved elderly patients with periprosthetic infections of the knee or hip and showed high success rates when combined with antibiotics and surgery. Phage therapy was well tolerated, with only mild adverse effects, such as fever and reversible transaminitis, occurring predominantly with intravenous administration. Review articles reveal that despite promising outcomes, challenges remain, including a lack of standardisation, limited clinical data, and regulatory hurdles. Conclusion This study highlights the potential of phage therapy for PJI, emphasising its high specificity, ability to target antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and capacity to disrupt biofilms, and provides a guideline for its clinical administration. Clinical adoption, however, remains limited by regulatory barriers, lack of standardised protocols, and insufficient trial data. Key steps for implementation include establishing regulatory frameworks, developing academic–industrial partnerships and reference centres, and identifying indications supported by controlled trials. With these in place, phage therapy could become a promising adjunct in managing periprosthetic joint infections. <MediaObject ID="MOESM1"> <VideoObject FileRef="MediaObjects/42836_2025_355_MOESM1_ESM.mp4" VideoID="4aEY8BT_E9aa5DBMRiM4xS"> <Caption Language="En" xml:lang="en"> <CaptionContent> Video Abstract </CaptionContent> </Caption> </VideoObject> </MediaObject>

Phage therapy in revision arthroplasty: State of the art and application protocols

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年1月13日

查看全文

Julius Michael Wolfgart,
Hanno Schenker,
Matthias Gatz,
Filippo Migliorini,
Joerg Eschweiler,
Steffen Langwald,
Hans-Peter Horz,
Albrecht Eisert,
Thomas Schwanz,
Ulf Krister Hofmann

摘要

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) pose significant clinical challenges due to biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance. Standard treatment often involves implant removal and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Novel strategies target intracellular pathogens and biofilm-associated bacteria, including liposomal antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides, and bacteriophage therapy. Bacteriophages offer specificity and minimal disruption to human microbiota but remain experimental in PJI. Combining phages with targeted antibiotics shows promising results in preclinical models, though further research is needed to confirm efficacy in human PJI and optimise delivery methods.

Objectives

This study updates the current evidence on the use of bacteriophages for patients with PJI, proposing guidelines for their clinical application.

Method

PubMed was searched for articles containing phage therapy in revision arthroplasty. No additional filters or time constraints were used. All eligible studies were accessed by hand.

Results

A total of 39 studies (20 clinical, 19 reviews) on phage therapy for PJI were analysed, covering 56 patients. Of those, negative outcomes were only reported in five. Most studies involved elderly patients with periprosthetic infections of the knee or hip and showed high success rates when combined with antibiotics and surgery. Phage therapy was well tolerated, with only mild adverse effects, such as fever and reversible transaminitis, occurring predominantly with intravenous administration. Review articles reveal that despite promising outcomes, challenges remain, including a lack of standardisation, limited clinical data, and regulatory hurdles.

Conclusion

This study highlights the potential of phage therapy for PJI, emphasising its high specificity, ability to target antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and capacity to disrupt biofilms, and provides a guideline for its clinical administration. Clinical adoption, however, remains limited by regulatory barriers, lack of standardised protocols, and insufficient trial data. Key steps for implementation include establishing regulatory frameworks, developing academic–industrial partnerships and reference centres, and identifying indications supported by controlled trials. With these in place, phage therapy could become a promising adjunct in managing periprosthetic joint infections.

Video Abstract