Aim. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are severe complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Up to now, a gold standard in the diagnostics of PJI is missing. Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are secreted by all types of cells and play a key role in immune response in presence of infection (1). In this prospective study, the diagnostic accuracy of sEVs in the synovial fluid to detect PJI of knee, hip and shoulder joints was investigated. We hypothesized increased surface markers of sEVs in PJI compared to aseptic complications (e.g. implant loosening, stress shielding related pain). Method. Synovial fluid from 48 patients with painful arthroplasty was examined. The distinction between aseptic and infectious cases was made on the basis of the 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection (2). 35 (72,9%) probands assigned to aseptic and 13 patients (27,1%) to PJI group. Immuno-fluorescence flow cytometry served to document the concentrations of CD9, CD63, CD66b, CD82 and HLA-DR on sEVs. Results. The concentration of CD9 surface marker on sEVs in synovial fluid was significantly lower (p=0.002) in PJI group than in aseptic group. In contrast, the levels of CD82 on sEVs in synovial fluid was significantly higher (p<0.0001) in the PJI group than in aseptic group. The concentrations of CD63, CD66b and HLA-DR on sEVs in synovial fluid did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (CD63: p=0.372; CD66b: p=0.634; HLA-DR: p=0.558). Conclusions. Overall, the significance of sEVs in the diagnostics of PJI is not well enough understood and the subject of current research and scientific discussion. Our data suggest, that CD82 and CD9 on sEVs in synovial fluid are promising biomarkers to differentiate between PJI and aseptic complications

The incidence of PJI in knee replacements is 2.8% and slightly lower with hip replacement surgery. PJI make up 15% (or even more) of knee revisions. To combat PJI, antibiotic laden bone cement has been used for many decades, but antibiotic stewardship dictates more prudent management of antimicrobials. Projected increase in infection rate, due to increased surgery and latent infection to be almost 5-fold up to 2035.

Biofilm is a complex structure of bacteria and polysaccharide matrix and, is recognised as a major component in PJI and other orthopaedic infections.

Biofilm is responsible for high incidence of resistance to antimicrobials and ineffective host immune response.

The treatment of orthopedic implant infections is often difficult and complex, although the chances of successful treatment with a properly selected diagnostic, surgical and antibiotic treatment protocol have recently increased significantly. Surgical treatment is a key factor in the treatment of infections of orthopedic implants, and any errors in this respect often lead to worse clinical outcomes.

Surgical errors. The most important and frequent surgical errors include:

- conservative treatment of periprosthetic infections with antibiotics alone: successful treatment requires adequate surgical procedure combined with long-term antimicrobial Th that is active against biofilm microorganism. Without adequate surgical procedure just the suppression of symptoms is usually achieved, rather than eradication of the infection.

We present illustrative cases with each common surcical error combined with proper solution.

Treatment of PJI is a demanding procedure, the goal is a long-term pain-free functional joint, that can be achieved by eradication of the infection. For a successful clinical outcome an appropriate diagnostic, surgical and antimicrobial procedure for the individual patient has to be selected.

The use of a cemented implant instead of a spacer has been proposed due to the improved function in comparison with a spacer. Unfortunately the removal of a conventional cemented stem can be challenging. The use of a short cemented stem can overcome this problem.

Between July 2011 and May 2013, 10 infected hips were treated with a short cemented stem as a spacer. The infected implants were cemented in 6 cases and cementless in 4 cases. Mean time from index operation was 3 years (range 0 to 8 years). It was the first treatment for infection in all cases. Antibiotic loaded cement and an all-poly cup was used in all cases. The bugs were staph aureus and staph epidermidis in most cases. A Friendly short cemented stem with specific cement restrictor and standard cementing tecnique was used in all cases. This stem has been successfully tested in over 200 patients and approved by TUV to be released on the marked.

In all cases, the infection was successfully cured with antibiotics for a period ranging from 3 to 5 months. 2 patients were revised after the infection was cured for recurrent dislocation. No recurrent infection was found at the latest follow up.

One stage revision is gaining in popularity for the decreased morbidity and better quality of life of the patients. Weak points of one-stage revision are slightly inferior results in terms of eradication of the infection and the fact that it can be done only with cemented implants. Cemented implants show inferior durability than cementless implants and are difficult to remove if revision is needed. The use of a short cemented stem can couple the advantages of one stage revision and the fact that it is easily removed if this is needed for various reasons (aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation and periprosthetic fracture). Contraindications to this technique are severe bone loss in the acetabulum or in the proximal femur.

Introduction

PJI is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. In this study, we explore the efficacy of a bacteriophage-derived lysin, PlySs2, against in-vitro biofilm on titanium implant surfaces and in an acute in-vivo murine debridement antibiotic implant retention (DAIR) model of PJI.

Introduction

There is no literature regarding the risk of a patient developing PJI after primary TKA if the patient has previously experienced PJI of a TKA or THA in another joint. The goal of this study was to compare the risk of PJI of primary TKA in this patient population compared to matched controls.

Purpose. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection is widely used for symptomatic relief of knee osteoarthritis. However, if pain is not improved which consequences a total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is a potential risk of post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of preoperative intra-articular corticosteroid injection increases the risk of PJI and to investigate a time frame in which the risk of subsequent infection is significantly increased. Methods. A systematic search was performed in PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were original studies investigating the rate of PJI in patients receiving pre-operative intra-articular corticosteroid injection compared to controls. Results. A total of 380 unique articles were screened. Six studies met the inclusion criteria with 255,627 patients in total. Overall, no statistical significance was observed in the intra-articular infection rate in corticosteroid compared to controls groups. However, intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 3 months prior to TKA were associated with a significantly increased risk of infection (OR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.37–1.67, p < 0.01); this was not observed in the 6-month period (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.80–1.39, p = 0.72). Conclusions. Performing an intra-articular corticosteroid injection within 3 months prior to TKA is associated with a significantly increased risk of PJI. The current evidence supports the safe use of intra-articular corticosteroid injection more than 6 months before TKA. However, additional studies are needed to clarify the risk of PJI after TKA implantation between 3 and 6 months after the last corticoid injection

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. This was a data linkage study using the New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC) and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), which collect data from all public and private hospitals in NSW, Australia. Patients who underwent a TKA or THA for OA between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2017 were included. The main outcome measures were 90-day incidence rates of hospital readmission for: revision arthroplasty for PJI as recorded in the AOANJRR; conservative definition of PJI, defined by T84.5, the PJI diagnosis code in the APDC; and extended definition of PJI, defined by the presence of either T84.5, or combinations of diagnosis and procedure code groups derived from recursive binary partitioning in the APDC. Results. The mean 90-day revision rate for infection was 0.1% (0.1% to 0.2%) for TKA and 0.3% (0.1% to 0.5%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates defined by T84.5 were 1.3% (1.1% to 1.7%) for TKA and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.3%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates using the extended definition were 1.9% (1.5% to 2.2%) and 1.5% (1.3% to 1.7%) following TKA and THA, respectively. Conclusion. When reporting the revision arthroplasty for infection, the AOANJRR substantially underestimates the rate of PJI at 90 days. Using combinations of infection codes and PJI-related surgical procedure codes in linked hospital administrative databases could be an alternative way to monitor PJI rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1060–1066

Aims. Although low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with disinfectants has been shown to effectively eliminate portions of biofilm in vitro, its efficacy in vivo remains uncertain. Our objective was to assess the antibiofilm potential and safety of LIPUS combined with 0.35% povidone-iodine (PI) in a rat debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A total of 56 male Sprague-Dawley rats were established in acute PJI models by intra-articular injection of bacteria. The rats were divided into four groups: a Control group, a 0.35% PI group, a LIPUS and saline group, and a LIPUS and 0.35% PI group. All rats underwent DAIR, except for Control, which underwent a sham procedure. General status, serum biochemical markers, weightbearing analysis, radiographs, micro-CT analysis, scanning electron microscopy of the prostheses, microbiological analysis, macroscope, and histopathology evaluation were performed 14 days after DAIR. Results. The group with LIPUS and 0.35% PI exhibited decreased levels of serum biochemical markers, improved weightbearing scores, reduced reactive bone changes, absence of viable bacteria, and decreased inflammation compared to the Control group. Despite the greater antibiofilm activity observed in the PI group compared to the LIPUS and saline group, none of the monotherapies were successful in preventing reactive bone changes or eliminating the infection. Conclusion. In the rat model of PJI treated with DAIR, LIPUS combined with 0.35% PI demonstrated stronger antibiofilm potential than monotherapy, without impairing any local soft-tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):332–341

Aims. We aimed to evaluate the utility of . 68. Ga-citrate positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in the differentiation of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic loosening (AL), and compare it with . 99m. Tc-methylene bisphosphonates (. 99m. Tc-MDP) bone scan. Methods. We studied 39 patients with suspected PJI or AL. These patients underwent . 68. Ga-citrate PET/CT, . 99m. Tc-MDP three-phase bone scan and single-photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT. PET/CT was performed at ten minutes and 60 minutes after injection, respectively. Images were evaluated by three nuclear medicine doctors based on: 1) visual analysis of the three methods based on tracer uptake model, and PET images attenuation-corrected with CT and those not attenuation-corrected with CT were analyzed, respectively; and 2) semi-quantitative analysis of PET/CT: maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of lesions, SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal bone, and SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal muscle. The final diagnosis was based on the clinical and intraoperative findings, and histopathological and microbiological examinations. Results. Overall, 23 and 16 patients were diagnosed with PJI and AL, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of three-phase bone scan and SPECT/CT were 100% and 62.5%, 82.6%, and 100%, respectively. Attenuation correction (AC) at 60 minutes and non-AC at 60 minutes of PET/CT had the same highest sensitivity and specificity (91.3% and 100%), and AC at 60 minutes combined with SPECT/CT could improve the diagnostic efficiency (sensitivity = 95.7%). Diagnostic efficacy of the SUVmax was low (area under the curve (AUC) of ten minutes and 60 minutes was 0.814 and 0.806, respectively), and SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal bone at 60 minutes was the best semi-quantitative parameter (AUC = 0.969). Conclusion. 68. Ga-citrate showed the potential to differentiate PJI from AL, and visual analysis based on uptake pattern of tracer was reliable. The visual analysis method of AC at 60 minutes, combined with . 99m. Tc-MDP SPECT/CT, could improve the sensitivity from 91.3% to 95.7%. In addition, a major limitation of our study was that it had a limited sample size, and more detailed studies with a larger sample size are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):398–408

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a 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 (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. 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. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. Achievement of accurate microbiological diagnosis prior to revision is key to reducing the high rates of persistent infection after revision knee surgery. The effect of change in the microorganism between the first- and second-stage revision of total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) on the success of management is not clear. Methods. A two-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted to review the outcome of patients who have undergone two-stage revision for treatment of knee arthroplasty PJI, focusing specifically on isolated micro-organisms at both the first- and second-stage procedure. Patient demographics, medical, and orthopaedic history data, including postoperative outcomes and subsequent treatment, were obtained from the electronic records and medical notes. Results. The study cohort consisted of 84 patients, of whom 59.5% (n = 50) had successful eradication of their infection at a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. For the 34 patients who had recurrence of infection, 58.8% (n = 20) had a change in isolated organism, compared to 18% (n = 9) in the infection eradication group (p < 0.001). When adjusting for confound, there was no association when the growth on the second stage was the same as the first (odd ratio (OR) 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 12.50; p = 0.269); however, when a different organism was identified at the second stage, this was independently associated with failure of treatment (OR 8.40, 95% CI 2.91 to 24.39; p < 0.001). There were no other significant differences between the two cohorts with regard to patient demographics or type of organisms isolated. Conclusion. Change in the identified microorganism between first- and second-stage revision for PJI was associated with failure of management. Identification of this change in the microorganism prior to commencement of the second stage may help target antibiotic management and could improve the success of surgery in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):720–727

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool. Methods. Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures. Results. The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation. Conclusion. Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):353–361

Aims. Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors. Methods. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip PJI who underwent a staged THA revision performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. Results. Our staged exchange practice shows poor results, which means a 42% mechanical spacer failure rate, and a 20% recurrent infection rate over the two years average follow-up period. Moreover, we found a high rate of spacer dislocation (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to the previous literature. Our findings stress that the majority of spacer complications and failures is reflecting a population with high comorbid burden, highlighted by the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Lee score associations, as well as the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney, or hepatic chronic conditions. Conclusion. Our experience of a two-stage hip exchange revision noted important complication rates associated with high failure rates of polymethylmethacrylate spacers. These findings must be interpreted in the light of the patient’s comorbidity profiles, as the elective population for staged exchange has an increasing comorbid burden leading to poor results. In order to provide better results for this specific population, our conclusion suggests that comparative strategy studies are required to improve our therapeutic indication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):485–494

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. Methods. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. Results. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). Conclusion. HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):924–932

Aims. The surgical helmet system (SHS) was developed to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but the evidence is contradictory, with some studies suggesting an increased risk of PJI due to potential leakage through the glove-gown interface (GGI) caused by its positive pressure. We assumed that SHS and glove exchange had an impact on the leakage via GGI. Methods. There were 404 arthroplasty simulations with fluorescent gel, in which SHS was used (H+) or not (H-), and GGI was sealed (S+) or not (S-), divided into four groups: H+S+, H+S-, H-S+, and H-S-, varying by exposure duration (15 to 60 minutes) and frequency of glove exchanges (0 to 6 times). The intensity of fluorescent leakage through GGI was quantified automatically with an image analysis software. The effect of the above factors on fluorescent leakage via GGI were compared and analyzed. Results. The leakage intensity increased with exposure duration and frequency of glove exchanges in all groups. When SHS was used and GGI was not sealed (H+S-), the leakage intensity via GGI had the fastest increase, consistently higher than other groups (H+S+, H-S+ and H-S-) after 30 minutes (p < 0.05) and when there were more than four instances of glove exchange (p < 0.05). Additionally, the leakage was strongly correlated with the duration of exposure (r. s. = 0.8379; p < 0.050) and the frequency of glove exchange (r. s. = 0.8198; p < 0.050) in H+S-. The correlations with duration and frequency turned weak when SHS was not used (H-) or GGI was sealed off (S+). Conclusion. Due to personal protection, SHS is recommended in arthroplasties. Meanwhile, it is strongly recommended to seal the GGI of the inner gloves and exchange the outer gloves hourly to reduce the risk of contamination from SHS. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):859–864