Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the gold standard for treatment of infection after total hip Arthroplasty and end stage septic arthritis of the hip. In the first stage we used a modified technique to insert an inexpensive modular femoral component coated with antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulating with a polyethylene liner. The construct was used in 8 patients with infected arthroplasty, and 6 patients with septic arthritis of the hip. Two patients were excluded (no second stage). Of the remaining 12 patients, only one patient had persistent infection after the first stage; 11 patients received a successful re-implantation at the second-stage. The technique provide a construct that can be used safely and successfully in the awaiting period between the two stages of revision arthroplasty

Aims. Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. Methods. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications. Results. A total of 19 studies were included: four one-stage, 14 two-stage, and one article with both one- and two-stage groups. Superficial infection was the most common complication (one-stage: 38% vs two-stage: 52%). There was a notable difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis (one-stage: nil vs two-stage: 10%) and implant failure (one-stage: 1% vs two-stage: 9%). Fracture incidence was equivocal (one-stage: 13% vs two-stage: 12%), and comparison of soft-tissue, stoma, and mechanical related complications was not possible. Conclusion. This review suggests that the one-stage approach is favourable compared to the two-stage, because the incidence of complications was slightly lower in the one-stage cohort, with a pertinent difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):539–550

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

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed. Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series. Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group. All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months. Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs

Aim. The duration of systemic antibiotic therapy following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, use high concentration targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Method. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospectively-collected database was performed to identify those patients who were planned to undergo a two-stage hip revision procedure for PJI. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of PJI as per the major criteria of MSIS 2013, a minimum 5-years follow up and were assessed at the time of review using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool (2018). They were then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). Results. 299 intended two-stage hip revisions in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage) met our inclusion criteria. 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. Median follow up was 10.7 years. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation; dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage surgery. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics following first stage surgery was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference in outcome was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed for gram-positive PJI (87%); than for gram-negative PJI (84%) and mixed Gram infection (72%; p=0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage hip surgery, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

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. To explore the effect of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. This study involved a retrospective collection of patients who underwent two-stage revision for chronic PJI and continued to use extended antibiotic prophylaxis in two regional medical centres from January 2010 to June 2018. The patients were divided into a short (≤ one month) or a long (> one month) course of treatment based on the duration of antibiotics following stage II reimplantation. The difference in the infection control rate between the two groups was compared, and prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed. Results. A total of 105 patients with chronic PJI were enrolled: 64 patients in the short course group and 41 patients in the long course group. For 99 of the patients, the infection was under control during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after two-stage revision. For the short course group, the mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after stage II reimplantation was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and the infection control rate was 95.3%; for the long course group these were 45.02 days (SD 15.03) and 92.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection control rates between the two groups (p = 0.676). Cox regression analysis found that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection (p = 0.015) was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence. Conclusion. After stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI, extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):790–796

The duration of systemic antibiotics following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, high concentration of targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy for two-stage hip revision. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospective database was performed to identify all intended two-stage hip revision procedures for PJI. All patients had a confirmed PJI as per MSIS 2013 criteria, minimum 5-years follow up and outcomes according to the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool; then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). 383 intended two-stage hip revisions were identified; of which 299 met our inclusion criteria, in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage). Median follow up was 10.7 years (IQR 6.3 – 15.0). 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation, although dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed with two-stage exchange or gram-positive PJI (86%); than for gram-negative PJI (81%) and polymicrobial infection (74%) (p=0.36). Fungal PJI was observed to have a significantly reduced rate of success (n=3; 33%; p=0.03). Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage to manage PJI of the hip provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

Introduction. The surgical management of late PJI was usually done in two stages with the placement of a temporary cement spacer. The development of one-stage surgical care raises questions about the two-stage strategy. The objectives of this study are to identify the complications related to the presence of the cement spacer within a two-stage strategy. The septic recurrence rate is also evaluated after a minimum follow-up of two years. Material and methods. Medical files of 208 patients (101 knees and 107 hips) who underwent a two-stage revision for late PJI prosthesis infection were retrospectively reviewed. Antibiotic loaded articulated homemade cement spacers were used. Second stage was usually planned on average 4 to 6 weeks after the first stage. Patients were allowed to walk without loading. The success rate was defined as the absence of septic recurrence after a minimum follow-up of two years. Descriptive statistics and uni- and multivariate analysis were conducted. Results. The spacers were left in place for an average of 42 days for the knees and 30 days for the hips. Six patients (3%) died before performing the second stage. Hip spacers were associated with 8 fractures for only one observed in the knee (4%). Spacer dislocation (11%) was observed in 23 cases (13 for the hip and 10 for the knee respectively). Treatment failure with recurrence of the infection within 2 years was observed in 26 patients (12%). Resistance to the antibiotic present in the cement was found in one third of infectious failures. The presence of a prior cemented prosthesis was significantly associated with the presence of a germ resistant to gentamicin and the persistence of the germ at the second stage. However, it was not associated with failure at two years. Discussion. the two-stage management of PJI is associated with a non-negligible mortality rate before the second stage, rarely reported in studies. The presence of an initially cemented prosthesis is associated with the presence of germs resistant to the antibiotic contained in the cement and exposes to the persistence of the resistant germ at the second stage. Spacer fractures are observed more at the hip, but less frequently than in previous reports, while dislocations are observed at both the hip and the knee, particularly due to loss of tibial fixation in this area. These observations are all arguments for further consideration of revision surgery in 1 stage

Aim. Analysis of microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome of patients who underwent a Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure in the early phase following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the knee and hip. Method. Of 312 patients treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty between January 2011 and December 2019, 16 (5.1%) patients (9 knee, 7 hip) underwent a DAIR procedure within 6 months following second stage. We retrospectively analyzed the microbiological results as well as changes in the microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns between stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasties and DAIR procedures. Patient's re-revision rates after a minimum follow-up of 12 months following DAIR procedure were evaluated. Moreover, differences between knee and hip and between infected primary total joint replacement (TJRs) and infected revision TJRs as well as patient's host factors and microbiological results regarding the outcome of DAIR were analyzed. Results. In 7/16 (43.8%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture positive, in 5/16 (31.2%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture negative and in 4/16 (25%) patients the first stage procedure was culture positive, and the second stage procedure was culture negative. Moreover, 6 (37.5%) out of 16 DAIR procedures showed a positive microbiological result. In 5/7 (71.4%) patients with culture positive second stage procedure a different microorganism compared to first stage procedure was detected. In 6/6 (100%) patients with culture positive DAIR procedure, the isolated microorganisms were not detected during first or second stage procedure. An additional re-revision surgery was necessary in 4/16 (25%) patients after a median time of 31 months (range, 12 to 138 months) at a mean follow up of 63.1 ± 32 months following DAIR procedure. Highest re-revision rates were found in patients with culture positive second stage procedures (3/7 [42.9%]) and patients with culture positive DAIR procedures (2/6 [33.3%]). Conclusions. DAIR procedure seems to be a useful early treatment option following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The re-revision rates were independent of different combinations of culture positive and culture negative first and second stage procedures. The high number of changes in the microbiological spectrum needs to be considered in the treatment of PJI

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. Over 1,000 operations are performed annually in the United Kingdom for PJI following hip replacement, using either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear which is preferred by patients and which has the best long-term outcome. This qualitative study aims to describe patient experiences of treatment and recovery following one- and two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI within the context of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing these two approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision treatment for PJI as part of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 12 participating National Health Service (NHS) Orthopaedic Departments and were interviewed 2–4 months after their first revision surgery and again approximately 18 months later. Final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. All patients consented to the interview being audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Ethical approval was provided by NRES Committee South-West Frenchay, 14/SW/116. Patients in both the one- and two-stage treatment groups described prolonged hospital stays, with burdensome antibiotics and brief physiotherapy treatment. However, following discharge home and during recovery, participants undergoing two-stage revision with an ‘empty hip' or with a spacer reported being physically restricted in almost every aspect of their daily life, resulting in inactivity and confinement to home. Mobility aids were not sufficiently available through the health service for these patients. A key difference is that those with a spacer reported more pain than those without. Approximately one year following their second-stage revision, participants described being more independent and active, but two directly attributed muscle weakness to the lengthy period without a hip and described resulting falls or dislocations that had complicated their recovery. In contrast, those undergoing one-stage revision and CUMARS appeared to be more alike, reporting better mobility, functionality and independence, although still limited. Participants in these groups also reported minimal or no pain following their revision. A key difference between CUMARS and one-stage revision was the uncertainty of whether a second operation was necessary, which participants described as “hanging over them”, while those in the two-stage empty hip or spacer group described a more positive anticipation of a second definitive operation as it marked an end to what was described as a detachment from life. Our findings highlight the differences between patient experiences of recovery following revision arthroplasty, and how this is influenced by the surgical approach and presence or lack of spacers. An understanding of lived experiences following one- and two-stage surgical interventions will complement knowledge about the clinical effectiveness of these different types of revision surgery

There is a paucity of long-term data on modular fluted tapered (MFT) stems for two-stage reimplantation following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT stems. We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from 2000 to 2020. Two designs of MFT stems were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years, mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. , and 46% were female. Median stem diameter was 19 mm, and median stem length was 195 mm. Mean follow-up was 7 years. A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n=25) and PJI (n=16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered portion of the component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only 2 FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all stems were radiographically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean HHS was 77 at most recent follow-up. This series demonstrated that MFT stems were durable and reliable even in the setting of two-stage reimplantation for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily caused by dislocation and recurrent PJI. Level of Evidence: IV

Aim. To improve the challenging treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), researchers are constantly developing new handling methods and strategies. In patients with PJI after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and severe local or systemic comorbidities, a two-stage exchange using a temporary antibiotic loaded PMMA-spacer is considered gold standard. This method has undisputed advantages, however, the increased risk of biofilm formation on the spacer surface, bone defects and soft tissue contractions after a six-week spacer interval are severe limitations. Our hypothesis is that a vacuum sealed foam in combination with constant instillation of an antiseptic fluid can address these drawbacks due to a significantly reduced spacer interval. Method. A pilot study was conducted in five PJI cases after TKA with severe comorbidities and/or multiple previous operations to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the proposed method. In the first step, surgical treatment included the explantation of the prosthesis, debridement, and the implantation of the VeraFlo-Dressing foam. The foam is connected to the VAC-Instill-Device via an inflow and an outflow tube. The surgical site is sealed airtight with the VAC-film. During the next 5 days, an antiseptic fluid (Lavasorb® or Taurolidine®) is instilled in a 30-minute interval using the VAC-Instill-Device. The limb is immobilized (no flexion in the knee joint, no weight bearing) for five days. Following that, the second operation is performed in which the VAC-VeraFlo. TM. -Therapy System is explanted and the revision TKA is implanted after debridement of the joint. Results. No serious adverse event occurred during the VAC-Instill spacer treatment. The TKA revision was performed after a mean of 5.4 ± 1.9 days. Mean patient age was 71±6 years with a mean of 6 previous PJI surgeries. Host classification according to McPherson was I/B/3, III/B/3 and III/C/3 in three cases. Out of the five cases included, four were successfully treated and remained infect free to date (mean 14.2 ± 12 months; germs: methicillin-resistant s. aureus, e. coli, staph. lugdunensis and one culture neg.). One case with candida infection of a total femur prosthesis had to be treated with an enucleation of the hip due to rising inflammation parameters and signs of sepsis 7 days after VAC-Instill implantation. Conclusions. The presented data on the VAC-Instill spacer method in septic two-stage revision TKA show promising results regarding feasibility and safety. A prospective randomized controlled examination is in progress to evaluate the possible advantages over a two-stage approach using a standard PMMA spacer

Aim. Two-stage replacement is a frequent procedure in patients with chronic PJI. However, results in the literature after this procedure differ, ranging from 54% to 100% of infection eradication. Positive cultures at reimplantation, when performing the second stage, are perceived as a risk factor for reinfection. This study aims to determine the impact of positive cultures during the second stage on the outcome of patients undergoing a 2-stage septic replacement and the impact of antibiotic holidays between the first and the second stage. Method. We systematically searched four databases from inception to May 31, 2022. We combined terms related to PJI, joint replacement and culture results. We analysed the risk of failure when positive cultures at second stage and performed a subgroup analysis by antibiotic holiday period. Results. We included 24 studies with 2387 patients of which 432 had positive cultures during second stage (18.09%). Global failure rate was 18.01% (430 patients). When dividing failure by culture results during second stage, we found that failure in positive group was 37.01% (161/432 patients) and failure in negative group was 13.7% (269/1953 patients). In the meta-analysis (MA) the odds ratio (OR) was 4.047 (95% CI: 2.954–5.544). When performing the subgroup analysis by antibiotic holidays we found that the rate of positive cultures without and with holidays was 21.3% and 16.05%, respectively. Failure rate without holidays was 15% (90/600 patients) and with holidays was 17.3% (202/1165 patients) (p=0.21). Failure in each group was higher when cultures were positive (without holidays, 25% vs 12.2%, p=0.0003, and with holidays 41.1% vs 12.7%, p<0.0001). In the MA we found that those studies in which antibiotic holiday was reported had higher risk of failure when cultures were positive during second stage (OR 4.798 95%IC 3.142–7.325). When studies reported no antibiotic holidays also had a higher risk of failure when cultures where positive (OR 2.225 95%CI 1.103–4.489), though it was lower. Conclusions. There exists a higher risk of failure after a two-stage septic replacement when cultures are positive during reimplantation. Patients who followed no antibiotic holidays or antibiotic holidays before reimplantation have similar failure rate when cultures are negative. In both groups they have a higher risk of failure when cultures are positive, having higher risk those positive patients in the antibiotic holidays group. Therefore, importance in detecting these patients before reimplantation is crucial to ensure higher survival rates

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty performed in case of infection has been considered during many years the gold standard for treatment of chronic infection. Nevertheless, during the last decade, concerns have risen regarding its safety and its efficiency. The purpose of our study was to, first investigate the spacer complications, then to analyze their risks factors. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection who underwent a two stage exchange revision arthroplasty performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluation were performed using the Student and Mann-Whitney tests. Our study confirms the hypothesis of a high-risk strategy with 42% of patients who had a mechanical spacer failure and a 20% recurrence of infection during the average two years period of follow-up. We found a high rate of spacer migration (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to literature. The most important finding was that the majority of spacer complications and failures were found in a population with high medical comorbidities as highlighted by the ASA, Charlson and Lee score associations, as well as with the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney or hepatic chronic conditions. This study showed that a two-stage hip exchange revision is a high-risk procedure regarding complications and mechanical failures of PMMA spacers. In patients with high medical comorbidities, other strategies may be considered and interdisciplinary cooperation with other facilities are needed to identify and control each risk factor

Aims. To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI). Methods. A retrospective cohort study of 50 chronic kPJI patients treated with two types of articulating spacers between January 2014 and March 2022 was conducted. The clinical outcomes and functional status of the different articulating spacers were compared. Overall, 17 patients were treated with prosthetic spacers (prosthetic group (PG)), and 33 patients were treated with cement spacers (cement group (CG)). The CG had a longer mean follow-up period (46.67 months (SD 26.61)) than the PG (24.82 months (SD 16.46); p = 0.001). Results. Infection was eradicated in 45 patients overall (90%). The PG had a better knee range of motion (ROM) and Knee Society Score (KSS) after the first-stage revision (p = 0.004; p = 0.002), while both groups had similar ROMs and KSSs at the last follow-up (p = 0.136; p = 0.895). The KSS in the CG was significantly better at the last follow-up (p = 0.013), while a larger percentage (10 in 17, 58.82%) of patients in the PG chose to retain the spacer (p = 0.008). Conclusion. Prosthetic spacers and cement spacers are both effective at treating chronic kPJI because they encourage infection control, and the former improved knee function status between stages. For some patients, prosthetic spacers may not require reimplantation. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(6):306–314

The increasing infection burden after hip arthroplasty has seen a growth of two-stage exchange and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. We have seen an increased number of failed two-stage revisions over the past decade. This study was aimed at clarifying the outcome of failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty after periprosthetic hip infection. We identified forty-two patients who had undergone at least one prior two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic infection between 2000 and 2012. These patients were referred to our center and treated with a further two-stage exchange. They have been analyzed with a minimum two-year follow-up. Control of infection at two-year follow-up was seen in 57% of patients. In 43% of patients there are still ongoing issues that either required further surgery or ongoing antibiotic suppression. A regression analysis was undertaken which suggested that the immunocompromised host and polymicrobial infection were the greatest predictors of failure. The number of previous interventions, the organism involved and the duration of antibiotic therapy after the initial two-stage revision were not linked to the ultimate outcome. The failure rate of repeat revision two-stage exchange is high and novel methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer interval periods, novel antimicrobial methods and more powerful antibiotic therapies should be investigated

Deep peri-prosthetic infection after partial or total knee arthroplasty is a disconcerting problem for patient and surgeon alike. The diagnosis of infection is sometimes obvious but frequently requires that the surgeon maintain a substantial index of suspicion for infection as the cause of pain or poor outcome after any joint arthroplasty. While surgical debridement with component retention is appropriate in a subgroup of patients with an acute peri-prosthetic infection, most delayed and chronic infections are best treated with component resection. With carefully selected patients and very aggressive debridement protocols some success has been demonstrated in Europe with single-stage exchange for infection. Most surgeons in North America, however, are unfamiliar with the very aggressive debridement techniques employed at European centers that promote single stage replant; and few surgeons in North America are currently comfortable in cementing a hinged total knee replacement in place for the typical infected TKA nor do they have the patience to re-prep and drape with an entirely new OR setup after debridement and prior to the insertion of the new implant − 2 steps that are often mentioned as important to the success of single stage exchange. The pre-eminent role of two-stage exchange as the definitive treatment was established over 30 years ago. Two-stage exchange remains the gold-standard in treatment with an established track record from multiple centers and with multiple different types of infecting organisms. Some of the historical problems with two-stage exchange, such as limited mobility during the interval stage, have been mitigated with the development of effective articulating spacer techniques. Further, the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and the possibility of fungal infection make two-stage exchange the best choice for the majority of patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection in 2017