Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Introduction. Historically, the most common indications for re-revision of a total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been aseptic loosening, instability, infection, and peri-prosthetic fracture. As revision implants and techniques have evolved and improved, understanding why contemporary revision THAs fail is important to direct further improvement and innovation. As such, the goals of this study were to determine the implant survivorship of contemporary revision THAs, as well as the most common indications for re-revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 2568 aseptic revision THAs completed at our academic institution between 2005 and 2015 through our total joint registry. There were 34% isolated acetabular revisions, 18% isolated femoral revisions, 28% both component revisions, and 20% modular component exchanges. The mean age at index revision THA was 66 years, and 46% were males. The most common indications for the index revision THA were aseptic loosening (21% acetabular, 15% femoral, 5% both components), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (18%), instability (13%), fracture (11%), and other (17%). Mean follow-up was 6 years. Results. There were 211 re-revision THAs during the study period in this cohort. The overall survivorship free of any re-revision at 2, 5, and 10 years was 94%, 92%, and 88%, respectively. The most common reasons for re-revision were hip instability (52%), peri-prosthetic fracture (11%), femoral aseptic loosening (10%), acetabular aseptic loosening (8%), infection (6%), polyethylene wear (3%), and other (10%). A pre-revision diagnosis of instability had the worst survivorship free of revision at 10 years (79%). Conclusion. Compared to historical series, the 88% survivorship free of any re-revision at 10 years in a difficult revision cohort is notably improved. As implant fixation has improved, aseptic loosening has become much less common after revision THA, and instability has come to account for more than half of re-revisions. Methods to further mitigate this risk may be emphasized during index revision THA

Recent studies have reported on non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) patients requiring revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Although the outcomes following revision surgery for ARMD in MoMHA patients are known to generally be poor, little evidence exists regarding outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD. We determined the outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary non-MoMHA patients who subsequently underwent revision surgery for ARMD between 2008–2014 were included (n=185). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intraoperative complications, mortality, and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision surgery were identified using Cox regression analysis. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n=11) of ARMD revisions. The cumulative 4-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI=92.9–99.5%). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n=25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest re-revision indications. The cumulative 4-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%-88.9%). Significant predictors of re-revision were: multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49; p=0.043), incomplete revision procedures (including modular component exchange only) (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9; p=0.022), and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR=3.08; 95% CI=1.01–9.36; p=0.047). Non-MoMHA patients undergoing ARMD revision have a high short-term risk of re-revision. Infection, dislocation/subluxation, and aseptic loosening were the commonest re-revision indications. Furthermore, important and potentially modifiable predictors of future re-revision were identified. Although the poor prognostic factors identified require validation in future studies, our findings may be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with ARMD revision surgery, and guide decisions about the reconstructive procedure

Historical perspective: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular exchange has historically been the recommended treatment for acute post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and acute hematogenous PJI. The theory supporting this practice was that because the bacterial glycocalyx had not yet formed by these early time points, by simply debriding the intra-articular bacterial load and exchanging the modular parts, one could potentially eradicate the infection, retain the prior components, and minimise morbidity to the patient. More recently, literature is coming out suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case. The vast majority of published research on the outcomes following I&D for treatment of PJI has focused on either cohorts of total knee arthroplasty patients or combined cohorts of total hip and knee patients. For this reason, it is difficult to tease out the differential success rate of periprosthetic hip vs. knee infections. Sherrell et al. performed a systematic review of the existing literature and created a table detailing the failure rates for various published articles on I&D for periprosthetic TKA infection. Since it is the glycocalyx that has been thought to be the reason for treatment failure of many cases of PJI treated with I&D, many authors have implicated staphylococcal species as a predictor of a negative outcome with failure rates ranging from 30–35%. Methicillin resistant organisms have been shown to be particularly difficult to eradicate with an isolated I&D, with a 72–84% failure rate at 2 year follow-up. Interestingly, a recent study by Odum et al. suggests that neither the infecting microbe, nor the antibiotic resistance profile of the organism, as has been classically thought, actually predicts success of I&D. Previous reports have indicated that the ability of I&D to control infection is related to the duration of symptoms and its timing relative to the index surgery. However, more recent literature is coming out to support the contrary. Koyonos et al. reviewed the outcomes of a series of 138 cases of PJI treated with I&D based on acuity of infection and concluded that an I&D has a limited role in controlling PJI regardless of acuity. Intuitively, the physical health of the host/patient should influence the success of I&D for treatment of PJI. Several authors have shown that an immunocompromised state is a predictor of treatment failure. Furthermore, Azzam et al. reported that patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, a proxy of severity of medical comorbidities, had a significantly higher failure rate. Although potentially appealing due to relative ease of execution and minimal surgical morbidity, the ability to successfully eradicate infection with an arthroscopic procedure may be compromised. Given the inability to perform a radical surgical debridement, nor exchange modular components, arthroscopic debridement should be used with extreme reservation in any case of PJI, regardless of the host, nature of the infecting organism, or acuity of infection. I&D as a conservative, less morbid alternative to two-stage exchange - There is a growing body of literature to suggest that an I&D with modular component exchange may not be the benign, less morbid alternative to the ‘gold standard’ two-stage exchange arthroplasty. In fact, Fehring et al. has reported that the success of a two-stage antibiotic spacer exchange arthroplasty may be compromised by an initial I&D. They found that patients who were initially treated with an I&D only had a 66% chance of eradicating infection following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, in contrast to historical reports of 80–90% success

Aims

Instability is a common cause of failure after total hip arthroplasty. A novel reverse total hip has been developed, with a femoral cup and acetabular ball, creating enhanced mechanical stability. The purpose of this study was to assess the implant fixation using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and the clinical safety and efficacy of this novel design.