Joint arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure, with over 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2014. After total hip or knee arthroplasty, about 1% of patients develop deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which usually requires further major operations to clear the infection. Although PJI affects only a small percentage of patients it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Research evidence has focussed on clinical effectiveness of revision surgery while there has been less focus on the impact on patients and support needs. Using a systematic review approach, the aim of this study was to assess support needs and evaluate what interventions are routinely offered to support patients undergoing treatment for PJI following hip or knee arthroplasty.

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Social Science Citation Index, and The Cochrane Library from 1980 to February 15, 2015 for observational (prospective cohort, nested case-control, case-control, and retrospective cohort) studies, qualitative studies, and clinical trials that report on the support needs and interventions for patients being treated for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following joint arthroplasty. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and consensus reached with involvement of a third.

Of 4,161 potentially relevant citations, we identified one case-control, one prospective cohort and two qualitative studies for inclusion in the synthesis. Patients report that PJI and treatment had a profoundly negative impact affecting physical, emotional, social and economic aspects of their lives. No study evaluated support interventions for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following hip and knee arthroplasty.

The interpretation of study results is limited by variation in study design, outcome measures and the small number of relevant eligible studies. Findings show that patients undergoing treatment for PJI have extensive physical, psychological, social and economic support needs. Our review highlights a lack of evidence about support strategies for patients undergoing treatment for PJI and other adverse occurrences. There is a need to design, implement and evaluate interventions to support these patients.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI.

We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated.

Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time.

From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision.

At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014.

Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery.

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but poorer outcomes after revision surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first 12 months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compared them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.

We conducted a single-centre UK cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80) or revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasty. WOMAC pain and function scores and 20-metres walking time were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of post-operative change (0–3 months and 3–12 months) between the types of surgery.

Patients undergoing primary arthroplasty had a total hip replacement (n=74) or hip resurfacing (n=6). Osteoarthritis was the indication for surgery in 92% of primary cases. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty had revision of a total hip arthroplasty (n=37), hemiarthroplasty (n=2) or hip resurfacing (n=4). The most common indication for revision arthroplasty was aseptic loosening (n=29); the remaining indications were pain (n=4), aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (n=4) or other reasons (n=6). Primary (87%) and revision arthroplasties (98%) were mostly commonly performed via a posterior surgical approach.

The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months following operation (WOMAC-pain, p<0.0001; WOMAC-function, p<0.0001; timed 20-metres walk, p<0.0001) with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period (p>0.05)

While the pattern of recovery after revision arthroplasty was similar to that observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty (p<0.0001). Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels (p=0.03) but similar post-operative levels (p=0.268) compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty (WOMAC-function p=0.015; Time walk p=0.004).

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty should be informed that the majority of their improvement will occur in the first 3-months following surgery and that the expected improvement will be less marked than that experienced following primary surgery. More research is now required to 1.) identify whether specific in-patient and post-discharge rehabilitation tailored towards patients undergoing revision arthroplasty would improve or achieve equivalent outcomes to primary surgery and 2.) whether patients who are achieving limited improvements at 3-months post-operative would benefit from more intensive rehabilitation. This will become all the more important with the increasing volume of revision surgery and the high expectations of patients who aspire to a disease-free and active life.

Around 1% of the 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in the UK are followed by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Although PJI affects a small percentage of patients, it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Treatment usually involves further major surgery which can adversely affect patients' quality of life. Understanding current service provision provides valuable information needed to design and evaluate support interventions for patients. The aim of this survey was to identify usual care pathways and support in UK NHS orthopaedic centres for this population.

The 20 highestvolume UK NHS orthopaedic centresfor hip and knee arthroplasty account for 33–50% of all cases treated for prosthetic joint infection. Infection leads at each centre were invited to participate in a survey about usual care provision and support for PJI. Questions exploredfollow up time-points; use of standard outcome measures; multidisciplinary care plans; supportive in-patient care and care after treatment; and onward referrals. Survey responses were recorded on a standardised proforma. Data were entered into Excel for analysis, then reviewed and coded into categories and frequency statistics to describe categorical data. A descriptive summary was developed based on these categories.

Eleven of the highestvolume orthopaedic centres completed the survey. Follow-up of patients varied greatly across centres; some centres reviewed patients at weekly or 2 week intervals, while all centres saw patients at 6 weeks. Long-term follow-up varied across centres from 3–4 monthsto 12 monthly. Length of follow-up period varied from until the infection had cleared toindefinitely. Follow-up timepoints were only standardised in 4 out of 11 centres. Only 1 centre had a dedicated infection clinic. Advice on who patients should contact if they had concerns included the consultant, community nurse, extended scope practitioner or the ward, while 3 centres told patients to avoid calling their GP. Only half of the centres routinely used standardised outcome measures with patients with PJI. The majority of centres provided standard physiotherapy and occupational therapy (OT) to in-patients while approximately half also offered social support. Only one centre provided dedicated physiotherapy and OT on a separate infection ward. Three centres provided hospital at home or community services to patients in-between operative stages. Only 3 out of 11 centres stated they had specific multidisciplinary care plans in place for patients. Once discharged most patients were provided with physiotherapy, OT and social services if needed. Common barriersto referral included complexities of referring patients outside the hospital catchment area;lack of availability of community services, and shortage of staff including physiotherapists. Delays in rehab and social services could also be problematic.

Findings show wide variation intreatment pathways and support for patients treated for PJI, both as inpatients and in the community. Only one of the 11 centreswho participated had a dedicated infection clinic. Only one centre suggested they individualised their physiotherapy support. A number of barriers exist to referring patients on to other support services after revision surgery.

Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded.

Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment.

Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK.

Femoral head collapse due to avascular necrosis (AVN) is a relatively rare occurrence following intertrochanteric fractures; however, with over thirty-thousand intertrochanteric fractures per year in England and Wales alone, and an incidence of up to 1.16%, it is still significant. Often patients are treated with a hip fixation device, such as a sliding hip screw or X-Bolt. This study aimed to investigate the influence of three factors on the likelihood of head collapse: (1) implant type; (2) the size of the femoral head; and (3) the size of the AVN lesion.

Finite element (FE) models of an intact femur, and femurs implanted with two common hip fixation designs, the Compression Hip Screw (Smith & Nephew) and the X-Bolt (X-Bolt Orthopaedics), were developed. Experimental validation of the FE models on 4^th generation Sawbones composite femurs (n=5) found the peak failure loads predicted by the implanted model was accurate to within 14%. Following validation on Sawbones, the material modulus (E) was updated to represent cancellous (E=500MPa) and cortical (E=1GPa) bone, and the influence of implant design, head size, and AVN was examined. Four head sizes were compared: mean male (48.4 mm) and female (42.2 mm) head sizes ± two standard deviations. A conical representation of an AVN lesion with a lower modulus (1MPa) was created, and four different radii were studied. The risk of head collapse was assessed from (1) the critical buckling pressure and (2) the peak failure stress.

The likelihood of head collapse was reduced by implantation of either fixation device. Smaller head sizes and greater AVN lesion size increased the risk of femoral head collapse. These results indicate the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with a hip fixation device does not increase the risk of head collapse; however, patient factors such as small head size and AVN severity significantly increase the risk.