Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the elution characteristics, antimicrobial activity and mechanical properties of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) loaded with powdered antibiotic, powdered antibiotic with inert filler (xylitol), or liquid antibiotic, particularly focusing on vancomycin and amphotericin B.

Aims. Patients receiving cemented hemiarthroplasties after hip fracture have a significant risk of deep surgical site infection (SSI). Standard UK practice to minimize the risk of SSI includes the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement with no consensus regarding type, dose, or antibiotic content of the cement. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of high dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement in comparison to low dose single antibiotic-loaded cement in patients 60 years and over receiving a cemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture. Methods. The WHiTE 8 Copal Or Palacos Antibiotic Loaded bone cement trial (WHiTE 8 COPAL) is a multicentre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. The pragmatic study will be embedded in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE) (ISRCTN 63982700). Participants, including those that lack capacity, will be allocated on a 1:1 basis stratified by recruitment centre to either a low dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement or a high dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement. The primary analysis will compare the differences in deep SSI rate as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 90 days of surgery via medical record review and patient self-reported questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include UK Core Outcome Set for hip fractures, complications, rate of antibiotic prescription, resistance patterns of deep SSI, and resource use (more specifically, cost-effectiveness) up to four months post-randomization. A minimum of 4,920 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect an absolute difference of 1.5% in the rate of deep SSI at 90 days for the expected 3% deep SSI rate in the control group. Conclusion. The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between low dose single and high dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement, which will inform policy and practice guidelines such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management of hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):72–78

Aims. A fracture of the hip is the most common serious orthopaedic injury, and surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most significant complications, resulting in increased mortality, prolonged hospital stay and often the need for further surgery. Our aim was to determine whether high dose dual antibiotic impregnated bone cement decreases the rate of infection. Patients and Methods. A quasi-randomised study of 848 patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip was conducted in one large teaching hospital on two sites. All were treated with a hemiarthroplasty. A total of 448 patients received low dose single-antibiotic impregnated cement (control group) and 400 patients received high dose dual-antibiotic impregnated cement (intervention group). The primary outcome measure was deep SSI at one year after surgery. Results. The rate of deep SSI was 3.5% in the control group and 1.1% in the intervention group (p = 0.041; logistic regression adjusting for age and gender). The overall rate of non-infective surgical complications did not differ between the two groups (unadjusted chi-squared test; p > 0.999). Conclusion. The use of high dose dual-antibiotic impregnated cement in these patients significantly reduces the rate of SSI compared with standard low dose single antibiotic loaded bone cement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1534–1541

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.