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

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

Aims. To explore the effect of different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in two-stage revision for chronic hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 36 chronic PJI patients treated with different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers between January 2014 and December 2017. The incidence of complications and the therapeutic effects of different types of antibiotic-loaded articulating cement spacers were compared. Results. A total of 36 patients with chronic hip PJI were included. Of these, 13 patients were treated with spacers with Kirschner wires as an endoskeleton (group I), ten patients were treated with spacers with a cemented femoral prosthesis as an endoskeleton (group II), and 13 patients were treated with cemented femoral prostheses combined with polyethylene sockets as a spacer (group III). All patients were followed for 12 to 60 months, with a mean follow-up period of 26.44 months (SEM 14.09). Infection was controlled in 34 patients (94.44%), and there were no significant differences in the eradication rate among the three groups (p = 0.705), but the risk of complications related to the spacer in group III was significantly lower than that in groups I and II (p = 0.006). Conclusion. Articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is effective in the treatment of chronic hip PJI, but we must pay attention to the occurrence of spacer fracture and dislocation, which can lead to poor joint function. The risk of spacer-related mechanical complications is low, and better joint function can be achieved when using cemented femoral prostheses combined with polyethylene sockets as spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(8):484–492

Aims

Treatment outcomes for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) using systemic vancomycin and antibacterial cement spacers during two-stage revision arthroplasty remain unsatisfactory. This study explored the efficacy and safety of intra-articular vancomycin injections for PJI control after debridement and cement spacer implantation in a rat model.

Objectives

The optimal protocol for antibiotic loading in the articulating cement spacers for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains controversial. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of articulating cement spacers loaded with a new combination of antibiotics.

Objectives

The optimal protocol for antibiotic loading in the articulating cement spacers for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains controversial. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of articulating cement spacers loaded with a new combination of antibiotics.

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

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. 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. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

Aims. After failed acetabular fractures, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and considered the gold standard treatment. The complexity of the procedure depends on the fracture pattern and the initial fracture management. This study’s primary aim was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients who underwent delayed uncemented acetabular THA after acetabular fractures. The secondary aims were to assess the radiological outcome and the incidence of the associated complications in those patients. Methods. A total of 40 patients underwent cementless acetabular THA following failed treatment of acetabular fractures. The postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated for all the cohort. Results. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) Oxford Hip Score (OHS) improved significantly from 9.5 (7 to 11.5), (95% confidence interval (CI) (8 to 10.6)) to 40 (39 to 44), (95% CI (40 to 43)) postoperatively at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). It was worth noting that the initial acetabular fracture type (simple vs complex), previous acetabular treatment (ORIF vs conservative), fracture union, and restoration of anatomical centre of rotation (COR) did not affect the final OHS. The reconstructed centre of rotation (COR) was restored in 29 (72.5%) patients. The mean abduction angle in whom acetabular fractures were managed conservatively was statistically significantly higher than the surgically treated patients 42.6° (SD 7.4) vs 38° (SD 5.6)) (p = 0.032). We did not have any case of acetabular or femoral loosening at the time of the last follow-up. We had two patients with successful two-stage revision for infection with overall eight-year survival rate was 95.2% (95% CI 86.6% to 100%) with revision for any reason at a median (IQR) duration of follow-up 50 months (16 to 87) months following THA. Conclusion. Delayed cementless acetabular THA in patients with previous failed acetabular fracture treatments produces good clinical outcomes (PROMS) with excellent survivorship, despite the technically demanding nature of the procedure. The initial fracture treatment does not influence the outcome of delayed THA. In selected cases of acetabular fractures (either nondisplaced or with secondary congruency), the initial nonoperative treatment neither resulted in large acetabular defects nor required additional acetabular reconstruction at the time of THA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1067–1074

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. Methods. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus. Results. Overall, 76 patients (90.5%) were infection-free at a mean follow-up of seven years, with eight reinfections (9.5%). Culture-negative PJI was not associated with a higher reinfection rate (p = 0.343). However, there was a significantly higher rate of recurrence in patients with polymicrobial infections (p = 0.003). The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) improved from 18.7 (SD 8.7) preoperatively to 33.8 (SD 9.7) at six months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for all causes of reoperation, including reinfection and aseptic failure, was 95.2% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.7 to 98.2), 83.5% at five years (95% CI 73.2 to 90.3), and 78.9% at 12 years (95% CI 66.8 to 87.2). Conclusion. One-stage exchange, using a strict debridement protocol and multidisciplinary input, is an effective treatment option for the infected TKA. This is the largest single-surgeon series of consecutive cases reported to date, with broad inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):305–313

The August 2014 Knee Roundup. 360 . looks at: re-admission following total knee replacement; out with the old and in with the new? computer navigation revisited; approach less important in knee replacement; is obesity driving a rise in knee replacements?; knee replacement isn’t cheap in the obese; cruciate substitution doesn’t increase knee flexion; and sonication useful diagnostic aid in two-stage revision

The April 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Genetic determinants of ACL strength; TKA outcomes influenced by prosthesis; Single- or two-stage revision for infected TKA?; Arthroscopic meniscectomy: a problem that just won’t go away!; Failure in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction; ACL reconstruction in the over 50s?; Knee arthroplasty for early osteoarthritis; All inside meniscal repair; Steroids, thrombogenic markers and TKA

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.

Aims

This study aimed to explore the role of small colony variants (SCVs) of Staphylococcus aureus in intraosseous invasion and colonization in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).