Introduction: Prosthetic joint infections occur in 1–2 % following total knee replacement. Different options of treatment are described in literature with a lack of data from randomized, controlled trials.

We classified septic revision surgeries following total knee according to a classification published by Mc Pherson. Eradication rate of one stage versus two stage exchange was compared.

Materials and Methods: We included 74 patients who underwent septic revision surgeries following total knee replacement in the years 1998 to 2005. Gender distribution was 42 female and 32 male patients. The mean age at revision surgery was 71 years, at primary implantation mean 68,8 years.

Results: The eradication rate overall was 77 %, in one stage exchange 41.7% and in two stage procedures 86%. Multiple stage revision showed an eradication rate of 75%, necrectomy/debridement 50%, arthrodesis and amputation 100%.

Regarding Mc Pherson’s systemic grades classification the eradication rate for two stage exchanges was 85,7% in group A+B and 60%% in group C. One stage procedures achieved 0% eradication rate in group B and 60% in group C. Regarding Mc Pherson’s local extremity grade classification eradication rates within two stage revisions were 84% in group 2 and 75% in group 3. One stage revision achieved 40% and 0%.

Conclusion: Although two stage revision surgeries achieved better results regarding eradication rates then one stage revision surgery, results were statistically not significant. Reason could be a too small number of included patients for a significant statistical impact. The individual surgical procedure should orientate on the classification published by Mc Pherson.

Introduction: Chronic infection after total joint arthroplasty is a complication of major concern to orthopaedic surgeons, especially if patients suffer from any type of immunodeficiency. But for extensive surgical and systemic treatment recurrence rates are high.

Silver is a long known local antimicrobial agent. The use of silver coated prostheses is a valuable option in some cases.

Yet there are patients for whom the permanent implantation of large amounts of silver does not seem to be the perfect solution.

Methods: From 02/2004 to 12/2005 nine patients with severe deep infections after multiple revisions following total joint replacement underwent two-stage revision and implantation of silver coated megaendoprostheses (MUTARS®).

From 04/2004 to 01/2006 seventeen patients of slightly less impaired disposition were treated by a comparable two-stage procedure using silver-augmented cemented spacer prostheses or cement fills.

Patients are closely observed regarding toxic side effects.

Concentration of silver in blood and puncture samples are measured using an argon plasma mass spectrometer.

Results: To date eight of nine patients with silver coated megaendoprostheses are free of infection. One patient with known cellular and humoral immunodeficiency recently developed a fistula, puncture showing superinfection by coag. neg. staphylococci.

In the second group one patient of seventeen actually shows a persisting infection, but cannot be matched properly as he primarily suffered from a long-term infected knee arthrodesis.

Silver concentrations ranged from a maximum of 1010 to 243 μg/kg (ppb) to a minimum of 84 to 304 μg/kg (ppb) with silver coating, and a maximum of 380 to 22,9 μg/kg (ppb) to a minimum of 76 to 5,02 μg/kg (ppb) with silver spacers.

There are large individual differences in both groups.

We found no signs of argyrosis or recently developed neurological deficits.

Discussion: The use of silver in the treatment of severely infected joint prostheses is a promising approach, but it is not without risks and throwbacks. Strict indication and surveillance are needed to keep possible side effects under control. It ought not to be used out of specialized centres.

Aims: The study aimed at analyzing the outcome of femoral components in patients with total hip replacement following osteonecrosis of the femoral head with regard to the associated factor of the osteonecrosis.

Methods: We reviewed 41 patients with 55 cementless total hip replacements operated for advanced osteonecrosis. According to etiology of the osteonecrosis patients were divided into two groups. The first group included 17 cases with osteonecrosis without a systemic disease and the second group 38 cases with osteonecrosis associated with a systemic disease (alcohol abuse, corticosteroid medication, sickle-cell-disease).

Results: The follow-up was on average 6.4 years (range, 2 to 12.8). Eight stem revisions had to be performed, all of them were in the patients with a systemic disease. Ten-year survival rates with femoral revision as the endpoint were in the first group 100%, and in the systemic disease group 68% (p=0.03).

Conclusion: The data of this retrospective study supports the notion that the aetiology of osteonecrosis might has an influence on the survival of the femoral component.

Aim: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the migration and survival of the femoral component following cementless total hip replacement in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head in comparison to patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Methods: The study included 31 patients who underwent 35 cementless total hip replacements for advanced osteo-necrosis of the femoral head and 49 patients with 58 total hip arthroplasties for osteoarthritis. The migration analysis of the femoral component was performed with the Einzel-Roentgen-Bild-Analyse (EBRA). Results: The follow-up for the patients with osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis of the hip was 6.1 and 5.9 years. Five stems (15.2%) from the osteonecrosis and two stems (3.6%) from the osteoarthritis group were revised for aseptic loosening. The median stem subsidence in the patients with osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis was 1.7mm (95% CI, 1 to 3.5) and 0.65mm (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.8), respectively (p< 0.01). Survivorship analysis with stem revision as endpoint for failure showed in the osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis group of 74.5% (95% CI, 56.1% to 92.8%) and 96.4% (95% CI, 91.5% to 100%), respectively (p< 0.05). Conclusions: The signiþcant difference in the subsidence and survival of the femoral component in the patients with osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis of the hip indicates that the bone around the prostheses is obviously inßuenced by the osteonecrosis. Young patients diagnosed with osteonecrosis of the femoral head should be treated with the most conservative treatment to preserve the hip joint.