We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies.Aims
Methods
Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing
This pilot study tested the performance of a rapid assay for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which measures synovial fluid calprotectin from total hip and knee revision patients. A convenience series of 69 synovial fluid samples from revision patients at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital were collected intraoperatively (52 hips, 17 knees) and frozen. Synovial fluid calprotectin was measured retrospectively using a new commercially available lateral flow assay for PJI diagnosis (Lyfstone AS) and compared to International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria and clinical case review (ICM-CR) gold standards.Aims
Methods
Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma.
