Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a complex challenge in orthopaedic surgery associated with substantial morbidity and healthcare expenditures. The debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol is a viable treatment, offering several advantages over exchange arthroplasty. With the evolution of treatment strategies, considerable efforts have been directed towards enhancing the efficacy of DAIR, including the development of a phased debridement protocol for acute PJI management. This article provides an in-depth analysis of DAIR, presenting the outcomes of single-stage, two-stage, and repeated DAIR procedures. It delves into the challenges faced, including patient heterogeneity, pathogen identification, variability in surgical techniques, and antibiotics selection. Moreover, critical factors that influence the decision-making process between single- and two-stage DAIR protocols are addressed, including team composition, timing of the intervention, antibiotic regimens, and both anatomical and implant-related considerations. By providing a comprehensive overview of DAIR protocols and their clinical implications, this annotation aims to elucidate the advancements, challenges, and potential future directions in the application of DAIR for PJI management. It is intended to equip clinicians with the insights required to effectively navigate the complexities of implementing DAIR strategies, thereby facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1377–1384.

Aim. It still remains unclear whether postoperative antibiotic treatment is advantageous in presumed aseptic revision-arthroplasties of the hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) with unexpected-positive-intraoperative-cultures (UPIC). The aim of this study was to evaluate if there is a difference in the septic and/or aseptic re-revision rate in patients with or without postoperative antibiotics. Method. In this retrospective propensity-score (PS) matched cohort-study we compared the re-revision rate and the microbiological spectrum in rTHA and rTKA treated with (AB-Group; n=70) and without (non-AB-Group; n=70) antibiotic treatment in patients with UPIC. Baseline covariates for PS-matching were type of revision, sex, Body-Mass-Index, age, Surgical-Site-Infection-Score, American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists-Classification, serum C-reactive-protein. All patients received routine antibiotic prophylaxis, but empiric AB treatment was started only in patients in the AB-Group. Post-operative treatment was decided on an individual basis according to the preference of the surgeon and the infectious disease specialist for a minimum duration of two weeks. In total, 90 rTHA (45 AB-Group, 45 in non-AB-Group) patients with UPICs and 50 rTKA (25 AB-Group, 25 in non-AB-Group) were included in the study. There was no significant variation in patient demographics. Results. After a median follow-up of 4.1 (IQR: 2.9-5.5) years after rTHA and rTKA, there was no higher re-revision rate (p=0.813) between the AB-group 10/70 (14.3%), and the non-AB-group 11/70 (15.7%). In the AB group, 4.3% (3/70) of patients underwent revision due to septic complications compared to 5.7% (4/70) in the non-AB group (survival log-rank: p=0.691). In total, 30/70 (42.9%) of patients in the AB-group and 23/70 (32.9%) of patients in the non-AB group were diagnosed as having an “infection likely” according to the PJI diagnostic criteria of EBJIS (p=0.223). All UPICs comprised low virulent microorganisms and were considered as a contaminant. In total, 68/70 (97.1%) of the patients in the AB-group received a dual antibiotic treatment for a mean duration of 41 (IQR: 23.5-56.5) days. Conclusion. Postoperative antibiotic treatment did not result in a decreased re-revision rate compared to non-antibiotic treatment in patients with UPIC in presumed aseptic rTHA and rTKA. UPICs with pathogens are likely to be a containment and therefore the classification of “infection likely” according to the EBJIS definition can be safely ignored

Aims. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context.

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar.

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Aims

Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has proved to be an effective treatment modality for sickle-cell hip arthropathy (mosaic-like dense bone due to infarcts). However, mode of failure, survival rates and challenges associated with revision hip arthroplasty in sickle-cell disease patients are mostly unknown. We retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data from all patients with sickle-cell disease who underwent revision hip arthroplasty from 2016. Patient, surgery, medical and surgical complications related data were collected. The pinnacle and reclaim revision system with gription augments (JJ) was used in all patients. Pre-op and post-op clinical outcome data (both objective and subjective, HOOS Jr and OHS) were recorded. Cumulative success rates were recorded with re-revision surgery as an end point. We performed fifteen revision THAs on 13 patients (mean follow up of 6.6 years). The mean age of the patients was 48 years (range, 30–59). At final follow-up, a statistically significant improvement of mean OHS and HOOS JR scores eas found in all patients. reported (OHS: 34.0 and HOOS JR: 77.7). Cumulative success rate was 100% for re-revision for all reasons at 6 years. Five intensive care unit (ITU) admissions, two vaso-occlusive sickle cell crises, one transfusion-related complication and one acute chest syndrome (ACS) were recorded. On admission, the mean percentage of HbS was 75.25% (64.6–86.4%). Revision arthroplasty in sickle-cell disease patients poses increased risks, with medical and surgical challenges. However, with careful preparation, planning and a multi-disciplinary team approach, revision arthroplasty can result in excellent clinical outcomes and excellent functional scores in the majority of patients in the short and mid-term

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients

Chronic pelvic discontinuity (CPD) during revision hip arthroplasty is a challenging entity to address. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes, and complications of the “acetabular distraction technique” for the management of CPD during revision hip arthroplasty. Patients with CPD, who underwent acetabular revision between 2014 and 2022 at two tertiary care centres, using an identical distraction technique, were evaluated. Demographic parameters, pre-operative acetabular bone loss, duration of follow-up, clinical and radiologic outcomes, and survivorship were evaluated. In all, 46 patients with a mean follow-up of 34.4 (SD=19.6, range: 24–120) months were available for evaluation. There were 25 (54.3%) male, and 21 (45.7%) female patients, with a mean age of 58.1 (SD=10.5, range: 40–81) years at the time of revision surgery. Based on the Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss, 19 (41.3%), 12 (26.1%), and 15 (32.6%) patients had type 3b, 3a, and 2c defects. All patients were managed using the Trabecular Metal™ Acetabular Revision System; 16 patients required additional Trabecular Metal™ augments. The mean HHS improved from 50.1 (SD=7.6, range: 34.3 – 59.8) pre-operatively, to 86.6 (SD=4.2, range: 74.8 -91.8) at the last follow-up. Two patients (4.3 %) developed partial sciatic nerve palsy, two (4.3%) had posterior dislocation, and one (2.2%) required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Radiologically, 36 (78.3%) patients showed healing of the pelvic discontinuity. The Kaplan-Meier construct survivorship was 97.78% when using re-revision for aseptic acetabular loosening as an endpoint. The acetabular distraction technique has good clinical and radiologic outcomes in the management of CPD during revision hip arthroplasty

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers. This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA. There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA. Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) articulations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have low wear, but the unique risk of fracture. After revision for CoC fracture, ceramic third bodies can lead to runaway wear of cobalt chrome (CoCr) causing extremely elevated blood cobalt. We present five cases of ceramic liner fractures revised to a CoCr head associated with the rapid development of severe cobalt toxicity. We identified 5 cases of fractured CoC THA treated with revision to CoCr on highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) – three to conventional bearings and two to modular dual mobility bearings (CoCr acetabular liner, CoCr femoral head, and HXLPE). Mean follow up was 2.5 years after CoCr/HXLPE re-revision. Symptoms of cobalt toxicity occurred at average 9.5 months after revision for ceramic fracture (range 6–12). All patients developed vision and hearing loss, balance difficulties, and peripheral neuropathy. Several had cardiomyopathy, endocrinopathy, and local skin discoloration. Two reported hip pain. Re-revision for cobalt toxicity occurred at an average of 22 months (range 10–36) after revision for ceramic fracture. Average serum cobalt level at re-revision was 991 μg/L (range 734–1302, normal <1 μg/L). All CoCr heads exhibited massive wear with asphericity; deep tissues exhibited prominent metallosis. Treatment consisted of debridement and revision to a ceramic head with HXLPE. Serum cobalt improved to an average of 25 μg/L at final follow up. All patients reported partial improvement in vision and hearing; peripheral neuropathy and balance did not recover. Systemic cobalt toxicity is a rare but devastating complication of ceramic fracture in THA treated with cobalt-alloy bearings. Cobalt alloy bearings should be avoided in this setting. The diagnosis of systemic cobalt toxicity requires a high index of suspicion and was typically delayed following systemic symptoms. Debridement and revision to a ceramic-on-HXLPE leads to improvement but not resolution of cobalt toxicity complications

There remains concern with the use of constrained liners (CL) implanted at the time of acetabular cup revision in revision total hip replacement (rTHA). The aim of this study was to determine the implant survival in rTHA when a CL was implanted at the same time as acetabular cup revision. We reviewed our institutional database to identify all consecutive rTHAs where a CL was implanted simultaneously at the time acetabular cup revision from 2001 to 2021. One-hundred and seventy-four revisions (173 patients) were included in the study. Mean follow-up of 8.7 years (range two – 21.7). The most common indications for rTHA were instability (35%), second-stage periprosthetic joint infection (26.4%), and aseptic loosening (17.2%). Kaplan Meier Analysis was used to determine survival with all-cause re-revision and revision for cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure) as the endpoints. A total of 32 (18.3%) patients underwent re-revision at a mean time of 2.9 years (range 0.1 – 14.1). The most common reasons for re-revision were instability (14), periprosthetic joint infection (seven), and loosening of the femoral component (four). Three (1.7%) required re-revision due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (fixation failure) at a mean of two years (0.1 – 5.1). Acetabular component survival free from re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 98.9% (95% CI 97.3 – 100) at five-years and 98.1% (95% CI 95.8 – 100) at 10-years. There were no acetabular component fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. CLs implanted at the time acetabular cup revision in rTHA have a 98.1% 10-year survival free from acetabular cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure). There were no cup fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. Thus, when necessary, implanting a CL during revision of an acetabular component with stable screw fixation is safe with an extremely low risk of cup fixation failure

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. 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. 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). 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

Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure. Integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability. Large diameter heads (LDH), Dual Mobility (DM) and Constrained Acetabular Liners (CAL) are enhanced stability options but the indication for these choices remains unclear. We assessed an algorithm based on Gluteus Medius (GM) deficiency to determine bearing selection. Default choice with no GM damage was a LDH. GM deficiency with posterior muscle intact received DM and CAL for GM complete deficiency with loss of posterior muscle. Consecutive revision THA series followed to determine dislocation, all-cause re-revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). 311 revision THA with mean age 70 years (32–95). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years overall dislocation rate 4.1% (95%CI 2.4–7.0) and survivorship free of re-revision 94.2% (95%CI 96.3–91.0). Outcomes:. Group 1 - LDH (36 & 40mm) n=164 / 4 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 2 - DM n=73 / 3 dislocations / 4 re-revisions. Group 3 - CAL n=58 / 5 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 4 - Other (28 & 32mm) n=16 / 1 dislocation / no re-revisions. Mean pre-op OHS: 19.6 (2–47) and mean post-op OHS: 33.9 (4–48). Kaplan-Meier analysis at 60 months dislocation-free survival was 96.1% (95% CI: 93.0–97.8). There was no difference between survival distributions comparing bearing choice (p=0.46). Decision making tools to guide selection are limited and in addition soft tissue deficiency has been poorly defined. The posterior vertical fibres of GM have the greatest lateral stabiliser effect on the hip. The algorithm we have used clearly defined indication & implant selection. We believe our outcomes support the use of an enhanced stability bearing selection algorithm

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

The results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions to correct leg length discrepancy (LLD) are not clear, with only two former limited series (< 25 patients). Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study of THA revisions for LLD to determine: 1) the change in LLD, 2) the function outcomes and whether obtaining equal leg lengths influenced function, 3) the complication and survival rates. This multicenter study included 57 patients: 42 THA revisions for limb shortening and 15 revisions for limb lengthening. LLD was measured on conventional radiographs and EOS. The Oxford-12 and FJS outcome scores were collected and the number of patients achieving the Oxford-12 MCID. The revisions were carried out a mean of 2.8 years after the index THA. The median LLD decreased from 7.5 mm (IQR: [5;12]) to 1 mm (IQR: [0.5;2.5]) at follow-up (p=0.0002). Overall, 55 of 57 patients (96%) had < 5 mm LLD at follow-up and 12 patients (21%) had equal leg lengths. The complication rate was 25%: 12 mechanical complications (8 periprosthetic femoral fractures, 2 stem loosening and 1 cup loosening, 1 dislocation) and 1 periprosthetic infection. The patient satisfaction was high with a median FJS of 79.2/100 and 77% of patients reached the Oxford-12 MCID. Lengthening procedures had significantly worst function than shortening (38% vs 91% of patients achieving the Oxford-12 MCID (p=0.0004)). Survivorship was 85% (95% CI: 77.9 – 92.5) at 2 years and 77% (95% CI: 66.3 – 87.1) at 4.6 years when using re-revision for any reason as the endpoint. When LLD after THA does not respond to conservative management, revision THA should be considered. Although revision THA for LLD improved medium-term functional outcomes with a high patient satisfaction rate, especially for shortening procedures, the complication rate was high, particularly related to periprosthetic femoral fracture

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). Methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. Results. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Conclusion. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):644–651

The August 2024 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: ESWT versus surgery for fifth metatarsal stress fractures; Minimally invasive surgery versus open fusion for hallux rigidus; Diabetes and infection risk in total ankle arthroplasty; Is proximal medial gastrocnemius recession useful for managing chronic plantar fasciitis?; Fuse the great toe in the young!; Conservative surgery for diabetic foot osteomyelitis; Mental health and outcome following foot and ankle surgery.

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807