The primary objective is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of inoculating homogenized tissue and bone biopsies in blood culture bottles (BCB) for patients with (suspected) orthopaedic device-related infections. As secondary objective the time to positivity (TTP) of BCB and Wilkins-Chalgren broth (conventional method) will be evaluated. Patients undergoing revision surgery due to suspected or proven fracture-related infection (FRI) or periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to respectively Consensus definition and EBJIS definition are included.1,2 A minimal of three macroscopic infected/inflamed tissue/bone samples are collected in a container with saline and glass beads. 1.5 mL of the homogenized suspension is inoculated in BacT/ALERT FA and FN Plus bottles for 14 days. The remaining suspension is inoculated in Wilkins-Chalgren broth for 10 days and subcultured when cloudy or after 10 days. TTP is defined as the time until definite identification of the pathogen in the Laboratory Information System.Aim
Method
We had previously reported on early outcomes on a new fluted, titanium, monobloc stem with a three degree taper that has been designed for challenging femoral reconstruction in the setting of extensive bone loss. The aim of this study was to report its mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data carried out at a single institution between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019. 85 femoral revisions were performed using a new tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc (TFTM) revision stem. Complications, clinical and radiographic data were obtained from medical records and a locally maintained database. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). All post-operative radiographs were analysed for subsidence, osteolysis and femoral cortical bone remodelling. Mean follow-up was 60 months (range 28–84 months). Subsidence of 1.2 mm was noted in one patient. No cases of clinically significant subsidence (10 mm) were observed. At final follow-up, a statistically significant improvement was noted in functional outcome scores. The mean OHS preoperatively and at final follow-up were 24 (SD 13) and 42 (SD15). p = 0.04 mean difference 18 (95% CI 15–22). The mean WOMAC scores preoperatively and at final follow-up were 62 (SD23) and 88 (SD7) respectively (p < 0.001, mean difference 26; 95% CI 21–34). No stem fractures were noted within the follow-up period. Two patients had revision of the stem's one for infection and another for persistent pain. Positive mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes have been observed with this tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc stem. Based on these results, this implant may be considered as a viable option in the majority of uncemented femoral revisions.
The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the current evidence for or against this up-and-coming treatment modality. A comprehensive literature search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Exclusion criteria included patients < 18 years of age, follow-up <11 months, and a score < 6 on the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool.Aim
Method
A septic revision of an artificial joint is routinely split up in a so-called Nine fresh frozen cadaveric hips were used and primary THA was undertaken via a direct anterior approach. Before implantation of the components varying amounts of fluorescent powder (GloGerm) were deposited, simulating bacterial infection. Second, a one-step exchange was performed via a posterolateral approach. After implant removal, debridement, and lavage, randomization determined which clean phase protocol was followed, i.e. no, some or full additional measures. Finally, the new prosthesis was re-implanted (fig. 1). In order to determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on contamination of the sterile field standardized UV light-enhanced photographs were obtained of 1) the gloves, 2) the instrument table, 3) the drapes, and 4) the wound and these were ranked on cleanliness by a blind panel of hip surgeons. In order to determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the prosthesis completely clean, the implant was taken out again at the end of the one-step exchange and inspected for contamination under UV light.Aim
Method
