Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the gold standard for treatment of infection after total hip Arthroplasty and end stage septic arthritis of the hip. In the first stage we used a modified technique to insert an inexpensive modular femoral component coated with antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulating with a polyethylene liner. The construct was used in 8 patients with infected arthroplasty, and 6 patients with septic arthritis of the hip. Two patients were excluded (no second stage). Of the remaining 12 patients, only one patient had persistent infection after the first stage; 11 patients received a successful re-implantation at the second-stage. The technique provide a construct that can be used safely and successfully in the awaiting period between the two stages of revision arthroplasty

Aims. Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. Methods. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications. Results. A total of 19 studies were included: four one-stage, 14 two-stage, and one article with both one- and two-stage groups. Superficial infection was the most common complication (one-stage: 38% vs two-stage: 52%). There was a notable difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis (one-stage: nil vs two-stage: 10%) and implant failure (one-stage: 1% vs two-stage: 9%). Fracture incidence was equivocal (one-stage: 13% vs two-stage: 12%), and comparison of soft-tissue, stoma, and mechanical related complications was not possible. Conclusion. This review suggests that the one-stage approach is favourable compared to the two-stage, because the incidence of complications was slightly lower in the one-stage cohort, with a pertinent difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):539–550

Aims. The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Methods. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’. Results. A total of 299 two-stage revision THAs in 289 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 258 (86%) proceeded to second-stage surgery. Their mean age was 68.1 years (28 to 92). The median follow-up was 10.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 6.3 to 15.0). A 91% success rate was seen in those patients who underwent reimplantation, decreasing to 86% when including those who did not proceed to reimplantation. The median duration of postoperative systemic antibiotics following the first stage was five days (IQR 5 to 9). There was no significant difference in outcome between those patients who were treated with antibiotics for ≤ 48 hours (p = 0.961) or ≤ five days (p = 0.376) compared with those who were treated with longer courses. Greater success rates were seen for Gram-positive PJIs (87%) than for Gram-negative (84%) and mixed-Gram PJIs (72%; p = 0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics at the time of first-stage revision surgery for PJI of the hip, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship, and reduced hospital costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):511–517

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. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims. Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI. Methods. A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups. Results. A total of 292 consecutive first-time rTKAs for chronic PJI were included: 82 single-stage (28.1%); and 210 two-stage (71.9%) revisions. The mean age was 71 years (27 to 90), with 165 females (57.4%), and a mean BMI of 30.9 kg/m. 2. (20 to 53). Significantly more patients with a known infecting organism were in the single-stage group (93.9% vs 80.47%; p = 0.004). The infecting organism was identified preoperatively in 246 cases (84.2%). At a mean follow-up of 6.3 years (2.0 to 17.6), the failure rate was 6.1% in the single-stage, and 12% in the two-stage groups. All failures occurred within four years of treatment. The presence of a sinus was an independent risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 4.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.593 to 15.505; p = 0.006), as well as age > 80 years (OR 5.962; 95% CI 1.156 to 30.73; p = 0.033). The ten-year patient survivorship rate was 72% in the single-stage group compared with 70.5% in the two-stage group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.517). Conclusion. Single-stage rTKA is an effective strategy with a high success rate comparable to two-stage approach in appropriately selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1373–1379

Aims. Uncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants – modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components – in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components. Methods. We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from September 2000 to September 2020. Two designs of MFT femoral components were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 7), and 46% (n = 109) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (SD 4). A competing risk model accounting for death was used. Results. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n = 25) and infection (n = 16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only two FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence ≥ 5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases. All stems were radiologically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Score was 69 (SD 20) at most recent follow-up. Conclusion. This series demonstrated that MFT components were durable and reliable in the setting of two-stage reimplantation THA for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily due to dislocation and recurrent PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):125–132

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed. Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series. Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group. All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months. Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs

Aim. The duration of systemic antibiotic therapy following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, use high concentration targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Method. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospectively-collected database was performed to identify those patients who were planned to undergo a two-stage hip revision procedure for PJI. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of PJI as per the major criteria of MSIS 2013, a minimum 5-years follow up and were assessed at the time of review using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool (2018). They were then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). Results. 299 intended two-stage hip revisions in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage) met our inclusion criteria. 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. Median follow up was 10.7 years. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation; dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage surgery. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics following first stage surgery was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference in outcome was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed for gram-positive PJI (87%); than for gram-negative PJI (84%) and mixed Gram infection (72%; p=0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage hip surgery, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

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

Aims. Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors. Methods. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip PJI who underwent a staged THA revision performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. Results. Our staged exchange practice shows poor results, which means a 42% mechanical spacer failure rate, and a 20% recurrent infection rate over the two years average follow-up period. Moreover, we found a high rate of spacer dislocation (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to the previous literature. Our findings stress that the majority of spacer complications and failures is reflecting a population with high comorbid burden, highlighted by the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Lee score associations, as well as the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney, or hepatic chronic conditions. Conclusion. Our experience of a two-stage hip exchange revision noted important complication rates associated with high failure rates of polymethylmethacrylate spacers. These findings must be interpreted in the light of the patient’s comorbidity profiles, as the elective population for staged exchange has an increasing comorbid burden leading to poor results. In order to provide better results for this specific population, our conclusion suggests that comparative strategy studies are required to improve our therapeutic indication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):485–494

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

The duration of systemic antibiotics following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, high concentration of targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy for two-stage hip revision. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospective database was performed to identify all intended two-stage hip revision procedures for PJI. All patients had a confirmed PJI as per MSIS 2013 criteria, minimum 5-years follow up and outcomes according to the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool; then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). 383 intended two-stage hip revisions were identified; of which 299 met our inclusion criteria, in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage). Median follow up was 10.7 years (IQR 6.3 – 15.0). 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation, although dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed with two-stage exchange or gram-positive PJI (86%); than for gram-negative PJI (81%) and polymicrobial infection (74%) (p=0.36). Fungal PJI was observed to have a significantly reduced rate of success (n=3; 33%; p=0.03). Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage to manage PJI of the hip provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

Aims. In our unit, we adopt a two-stage surgical reconstruction approach using internal fixation for the management of infected Charcot foot deformity. We evaluate our experience with this functional limb salvage method. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all patients with infected Charcot foot deformity who underwent two-stage reconstruction with internal fixation between July 2011 and November 2019, with a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Results. We identified 23 feet in 22 patients with a mean age of 56.7 years (33 to 70). The mean postoperative follow-up period was 44.7 months (14 to 99). Limb salvage was achieved in all patients. At one-year follow-up, all ulcers have healed and independent full weightbearing mobilization was achieved in all but one patient. Seven patients developed new mechanical skin breakdown; all went on to heal following further interventions. Fusion of the hindfoot was achieved in 15 of 18 feet (83.3%). Midfoot fusion was achieved in nine of 15 patients (60%) and six had stable and painless fibrous nonunion. Hardware failure occurred in five feet, all with broken dorsomedial locking plate. Six patients required further surgery, two underwent revision surgery for infected nonunion, two for removal of metalwork and exostectomy, and two for dynamization of the hindfoot nail. Conclusion. Two-stage reconstruction of the infected and deformed Charcot foot using internal fixation and following the principle of ‘long-segment, rigid and durable internal fixation, with optimal bone opposition and local antibiotic elusion’ is a good form of treatment provided a multidisciplinary care plan is delivered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1611–1618

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

Aims. The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients and Methods. We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years. Results. A satisfactory control of infection and successful outcome was seen in 26 patients (57%). There therefore remained persistent symptoms that either required further surgery or chronic antibiotic suppression in 16 patients (38%). One-third of patients had died by the time of two years’ follow-up. Conclusion. The rate of failure and complication rate of repeat two-stage exchange THA for PJI is high and new methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer periods between stages, and new and more powerful forms of antimicrobial treatment should be investigated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):110–115

Introduction. The surgical management of late PJI was usually done in two stages with the placement of a temporary cement spacer. The development of one-stage surgical care raises questions about the two-stage strategy. The objectives of this study are to identify the complications related to the presence of the cement spacer within a two-stage strategy. The septic recurrence rate is also evaluated after a minimum follow-up of two years. Material and methods. Medical files of 208 patients (101 knees and 107 hips) who underwent a two-stage revision for late PJI prosthesis infection were retrospectively reviewed. Antibiotic loaded articulated homemade cement spacers were used. Second stage was usually planned on average 4 to 6 weeks after the first stage. Patients were allowed to walk without loading. The success rate was defined as the absence of septic recurrence after a minimum follow-up of two years. Descriptive statistics and uni- and multivariate analysis were conducted. Results. The spacers were left in place for an average of 42 days for the knees and 30 days for the hips. Six patients (3%) died before performing the second stage. Hip spacers were associated with 8 fractures for only one observed in the knee (4%). Spacer dislocation (11%) was observed in 23 cases (13 for the hip and 10 for the knee respectively). Treatment failure with recurrence of the infection within 2 years was observed in 26 patients (12%). Resistance to the antibiotic present in the cement was found in one third of infectious failures. The presence of a prior cemented prosthesis was significantly associated with the presence of a germ resistant to gentamicin and the persistence of the germ at the second stage. However, it was not associated with failure at two years. Discussion. the two-stage management of PJI is associated with a non-negligible mortality rate before the second stage, rarely reported in studies. The presence of an initially cemented prosthesis is associated with the presence of germs resistant to the antibiotic contained in the cement and exposes to the persistence of the resistant germ at the second stage. Spacer fractures are observed more at the hip, but less frequently than in previous reports, while dislocations are observed at both the hip and the knee, particularly due to loss of tibial fixation in this area. These observations are all arguments for further consideration of revision surgery in 1 stage

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aim. Analysis of microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome of patients who underwent a Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure in the early phase following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the knee and hip. Method. Of 312 patients treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty between January 2011 and December 2019, 16 (5.1%) patients (9 knee, 7 hip) underwent a DAIR procedure within 6 months following second stage. We retrospectively analyzed the microbiological results as well as changes in the microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns between stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasties and DAIR procedures. Patient's re-revision rates after a minimum follow-up of 12 months following DAIR procedure were evaluated. Moreover, differences between knee and hip and between infected primary total joint replacement (TJRs) and infected revision TJRs as well as patient's host factors and microbiological results regarding the outcome of DAIR were analyzed. Results. In 7/16 (43.8%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture positive, in 5/16 (31.2%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture negative and in 4/16 (25%) patients the first stage procedure was culture positive, and the second stage procedure was culture negative. Moreover, 6 (37.5%) out of 16 DAIR procedures showed a positive microbiological result. In 5/7 (71.4%) patients with culture positive second stage procedure a different microorganism compared to first stage procedure was detected. In 6/6 (100%) patients with culture positive DAIR procedure, the isolated microorganisms were not detected during first or second stage procedure. An additional re-revision surgery was necessary in 4/16 (25%) patients after a median time of 31 months (range, 12 to 138 months) at a mean follow up of 63.1 ± 32 months following DAIR procedure. Highest re-revision rates were found in patients with culture positive second stage procedures (3/7 [42.9%]) and patients with culture positive DAIR procedures (2/6 [33.3%]). Conclusions. DAIR procedure seems to be a useful early treatment option following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The re-revision rates were independent of different combinations of culture positive and culture negative first and second stage procedures. The high number of changes in the microbiological spectrum needs to be considered in the treatment of PJI

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Mechanical failure due to dislocation, fracture and acetabular wear as well as persistence of infection are the main complications associated with the use of hip spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). We have developed a novel, custom-made spacer as part of two-stage septic hip replacement and present the two- to five-year results after reimplantation. We prospectively examined a total of 73 patients over our study period in whom our new spacer technique was used. The technique includes a dual mobility inlay and a cemented straight stem in combination with antibiotic-loaded PMMA bone cement which allows full weight bearing meanwhile the interim period. The follow-up ranged between 24 and 60 months after reimplantation as second stage of a two-stage approach. The patients were contacted as part of the follow-up using a questionnaire concerning reoperation, reinfection as well as hip function by using the Harris Hip Score. 72 patients (98,6%) could be reimplanted, one patient is still using the spacer prothesis for 45 months because of excellent functional results with a Harris Hip Score of 95, nevertheless reimplantation is planned. The reinfection rate was less than 7% after reimplantation. The dislocation rate was 5%, and in total there was an overall complication rate of less than 10%. The Harris Hip Score was significantly improved. The ENDO spacer surgical technique is a promising option in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) for two-stage septic exchange with a low dislocation rate and good infection control after reimplantation. In addition, it enables early mobilization with the possibility of full weight-bearing in the interval between spacer implantation and reimplantation

Aims. Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. Methods. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5). Results. Eight knees failed directly related to lack of infection control (16%), and two patients (two knees) died within the first year for causes not directly related, giving an initial success rate of 79% (38/48). Secondary success rate after a subsequent procedure was 91% (44/48 knees). From the initially retained spacers, four knees (22%) required a second-stage revision for continuous symptoms and one (5%) for an acute infection. There were no significant differences regarding the failure rate due to infection, ROM, and QoL assessment between patients with a retained first-stage procedure and those who underwent a second-stage operation. Conclusion. Our protocol of two-stage exchange for infected knee arthroplasties with an articulating spacer and using new primary knee implants achieves adequate infection control. Retained first-stage operations achieve comparable results in selected cases, with no difference in infection control, ROM, and QoL assessment in comparison to patients with completed two-stage revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):852–860

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. Over 1,000 operations are performed annually in the United Kingdom for PJI following hip replacement, using either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear which is preferred by patients and which has the best long-term outcome. This qualitative study aims to describe patient experiences of treatment and recovery following one- and two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI within the context of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing these two approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision treatment for PJI as part of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 12 participating National Health Service (NHS) Orthopaedic Departments and were interviewed 2–4 months after their first revision surgery and again approximately 18 months later. Final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. All patients consented to the interview being audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Ethical approval was provided by NRES Committee South-West Frenchay, 14/SW/116. Patients in both the one- and two-stage treatment groups described prolonged hospital stays, with burdensome antibiotics and brief physiotherapy treatment. However, following discharge home and during recovery, participants undergoing two-stage revision with an ‘empty hip' or with a spacer reported being physically restricted in almost every aspect of their daily life, resulting in inactivity and confinement to home. Mobility aids were not sufficiently available through the health service for these patients. A key difference is that those with a spacer reported more pain than those without. Approximately one year following their second-stage revision, participants described being more independent and active, but two directly attributed muscle weakness to the lengthy period without a hip and described resulting falls or dislocations that had complicated their recovery. In contrast, those undergoing one-stage revision and CUMARS appeared to be more alike, reporting better mobility, functionality and independence, although still limited. Participants in these groups also reported minimal or no pain following their revision. A key difference between CUMARS and one-stage revision was the uncertainty of whether a second operation was necessary, which participants described as “hanging over them”, while those in the two-stage empty hip or spacer group described a more positive anticipation of a second definitive operation as it marked an end to what was described as a detachment from life. Our findings highlight the differences between patient experiences of recovery following revision arthroplasty, and how this is influenced by the surgical approach and presence or lack of spacers. An understanding of lived experiences following one- and two-stage surgical interventions will complement knowledge about the clinical effectiveness of these different types of revision surgery

Aims. Recurrent infection following two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication. The purpose of this study was to report the survival of repeat two-stage revision hip arthroplasty, describe complications, and identify risk factors for failure. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively identified 19 hips (19 patients) that had undergone repeat two-stage revision THA for infection between 2000 to 2013. There were seven female patients (37%) and the mean age was 60 years (30 to 85). Survival free from revision was assessed via Kaplan–Meier analysis. The patients were classified according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) system, and risk factors for failure were identified. Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11). Results. Gram-positive bacteria were responsible for 16/17 (94%) of the re-infections where microbes were identified. Following the repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty, survival free from any revision was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56% to 96%, 14 at risk) at two years and 45% (95% CI 25% to 75%, five at risk) at five years. Failure to control infection resulted in re-operation or revision in 42%A of patients (8/19). Survival free from revision was not dependent on host grade. Conclusion. Re-infection after two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for PJI presents a challenging scenario. Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty has a low survival free from revision at five years (45%) and a high rate of re-infection (42%). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1157–61

Aims. Accurate diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a significant challenge for hip surgeons. Preoperative diagnosis is not always easy to establish, making the intraoperative decision-making process crucial in deciding between one- and two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Calprotectin is a promising point-of-care novel biomarker that has displayed high accuracy in detecting PJI. We aimed to evaluate the utility of intraoperative calprotectin lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) in THA patients with suspected chronic PJI. Methods. The study included 48 THAs in 48 patients with a clinical suspicion of PJI, but who did not meet European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) PJI criteria preoperatively, out of 105 patients undergoing revision THA at our institution for possible PJI between November 2020 and December 2022. Intraoperatively, synovial fluid calprotectin was measured with LFI. Cases with calprotectin levels ≥ 50 mg/l were considered infected and treated with two-stage revision THA; in negative cases, one-stage revision was performed. At least five tissue cultures were obtained; the implants removed were sent for sonication. Results. Calprotectin was positive (≥ 50 mg/l) in 27 cases; out of these, 25 had positive tissue cultures and/or sonication. Calprotectin was negative in 21 cases. There was one false negative case, which had positive tissue cultures. Calprotectin showed an area under the curve of 0.917, sensitivity of 96.2%, specificity of 90.9%, positive predictive value of 92.6%, negative predictive value of 95.2%, positive likelihood ratio of 10.6, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. Overall, 45/48 patients were correctly diagnosed and treated by our algorithm, which included intraoperative calprotectin measurement. This yielded a 93.8% concordance with postoperatively assessed EBJIS criteria. Conclusion. Calprotectin can be a valuable tool in facilitating the intraoperative decision-making process for cases in which chronic PJI is suspected and diagnosis cannot be established preoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):118–124

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688

There is a paucity of long-term data on modular fluted tapered (MFT) stems for two-stage reimplantation following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT stems. We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from 2000 to 2020. Two designs of MFT stems were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years, mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. , and 46% were female. Median stem diameter was 19 mm, and median stem length was 195 mm. Mean follow-up was 7 years. A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n=25) and PJI (n=16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered portion of the component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only 2 FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all stems were radiographically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean HHS was 77 at most recent follow-up. This series demonstrated that MFT stems were durable and reliable even in the setting of two-stage reimplantation for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily caused by dislocation and recurrent PJI. Level of Evidence: IV

Aims. Arthrodesis is rarely used as a salvage procedure for patients with a chronically infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and little information is available about the outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, durability, and safety of this procedure as the definitive treatment for complex, chronically infected TKA, in a current series of patients. Methods. We retrospectively identified 41 patients (41 TKAs) with a complex infected TKA, who were treated between 2002 and 2016 using a deliberate, two-stage knee arthrodesis. Their mean age was 64 years (34 to 88) and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 39 kg/m. 2. (25 to 79). The mean follow-up was four years (2 to 9). The extensor mechanism (EM) was deficient in 27 patients (66%) and flap cover was required in 14 (34%). Most patients were host grade B (56%) or C (29%), and limb grade 3 (71%), according to the classification of McPherson et al. A total of 12 patients (29%) had polymicrobial infections and 20 (49%) had multi-drug resistant organisms; fixation involved an intramedullary nail in 25 (61%), an external fixator in ten (24%), and dual plates in six (15%). Results. Survivorship free from amputation, persistent infection, and reoperation, other than removal of an external fixator, at five years was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 100%), 85% (95% CI 75% to 95%), and 64% (95% CI 46% to 82%), respectively. Reoperation, other than removal of an external fixator, occurred in 13 patients (32%). After the initial treatment, radiological nonunion developed in ten knees (24%). Nonunion was significantly correlated with persistent infection (p = 0.006) and external fixation (p = 0.005). Of those patients who achieved limb salvage, 34 (87%) remained mobile and 31 (79%) had ‘absent’ or ‘minimal’ pain ratings. Conclusion. Knee arthrodesis using a two-stage protocol achieved a survivorship free from amputation for persistent infection of 95% at five years with 87% of patients were mobile at final follow-up. However, early reoperation was common (32%). This is not surprising as this series included worst-case infected TKAs in which two-thirds of the patients had a disrupted EM, one-third required flap cover, and most had polymicrobial or multi-drug resistant organisms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):170–175

Aims. Whether a combined anteroposterior fusion or a posterior-only fusion is more effective in the management of patients with Scheuermann’s kyphosis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of these surgical approaches, and to evaluate the postoperative complications with the hypothesis that proximal junctional kyphosis would be more common in one-stage posterior-only fusion. Methods. A retrospective review of patients treated surgically for Scheuermann’s kyphosis between 2006 and 2014 was performed. A total of 62 patients were identified, with 31 in each group. Parameters were compared to evaluate postoperative outcomes using chi-squared tests, independent-samples t-tests, and z-tests of proportions analyses where applicable. Results. There were six postoperative infections in the two-stage anteroposterior group compared with three in the one-stage posterior-only group. A total of four patients in the anteroposterior group required revision surgery, compared with six in the posterior-only group. There was a significantly higher incidence of junctional failure associated with the one-stage posterior-only approach (12.9% vs 0%, p = 0.036). Proximal junction kyphosis (anteroposterior fusion (74.2%) vs posterior-only fusion (77.4%); p = 0.382) and distal junctional kyphosis (anteroposterior fusion (25.8%) vs posterior-only fusion (19.3%), p = 0.271) are common postoperative complications following both surgical approaches. Conclusion. A two-stage anteroposterior fusion was associated with a significantly greater correction of the kyphosis compared with a one-stage posterior-only fusion, with a reduced incidence of junctional failure (0 vs 3). There was a notably greater incidence of infection with two-stage anteroposterior fusion; however, all were medically managed. More patients in the posterior-only group required revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1368–1374

The relative advantages and disadvantages of two-stage versus one-stage management of infected total hip arthroplasties are the current subject of intense debate. To understand the merits of each approach detailed information on the short and, importantly, longer-term outcomes of each must be known. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results of two-stage exchange arthroplasty for THAs in one of the largest series to date. We identified 331 infected THAs treated with a two-stage exchange arthroplasty between 1993 and 2021 at a single institution. Patients were excluded if they had prior treatment for infection. Mean age at reimplantation was 66 years, 38% were female, and mean BMI was 30 kg/m. 2. PJI diagnosis was based on the 2011 MSIS criteria. A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized. Mean follow up was 8 years. The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 7% at 1 year and 11% at 5 and 10 years. Factors predictive of reinfection included BMI>30 kg/m. 2. (HR 2; p=0.049), and need for a spacer exchange (HR 3.2; p=0.006). The cumulative incidence of any revision was 13% at 5 and 10 years. The cumulative incidence of aseptic revision was 3% at 1 year, 7% at 5 years, and 8% at 10 years. Dislocation occurred in 33 hips (11% at 10 years; 45% required revision). Factors predictive of dislocation were female sex (HR 2; p=0.047) and BMI<30 kg/m. 2. (HR 3; p=0.02). The mean HHS improved from 54 to 75 at 10 years. In this series of 331 two-stage exchange arthroplasties performed for infected hips, we found a low aseptic revision rate (8%) and a low rate of reinfection (11%) at 10 years. These long-term mechanical and infection data must be kept in mind when considering a paradigm shift to one-stage exchanges. Level of Evidence: Level III

Aim. Two-stage replacement is a frequent procedure in patients with chronic PJI. However, results in the literature after this procedure differ, ranging from 54% to 100% of infection eradication. Positive cultures at reimplantation, when performing the second stage, are perceived as a risk factor for reinfection. This study aims to determine the impact of positive cultures during the second stage on the outcome of patients undergoing a 2-stage septic replacement and the impact of antibiotic holidays between the first and the second stage. Method. We systematically searched four databases from inception to May 31, 2022. We combined terms related to PJI, joint replacement and culture results. We analysed the risk of failure when positive cultures at second stage and performed a subgroup analysis by antibiotic holiday period. Results. We included 24 studies with 2387 patients of which 432 had positive cultures during second stage (18.09%). Global failure rate was 18.01% (430 patients). When dividing failure by culture results during second stage, we found that failure in positive group was 37.01% (161/432 patients) and failure in negative group was 13.7% (269/1953 patients). In the meta-analysis (MA) the odds ratio (OR) was 4.047 (95% CI: 2.954–5.544). When performing the subgroup analysis by antibiotic holidays we found that the rate of positive cultures without and with holidays was 21.3% and 16.05%, respectively. Failure rate without holidays was 15% (90/600 patients) and with holidays was 17.3% (202/1165 patients) (p=0.21). Failure in each group was higher when cultures were positive (without holidays, 25% vs 12.2%, p=0.0003, and with holidays 41.1% vs 12.7%, p<0.0001). In the MA we found that those studies in which antibiotic holiday was reported had higher risk of failure when cultures were positive during second stage (OR 4.798 95%IC 3.142–7.325). When studies reported no antibiotic holidays also had a higher risk of failure when cultures where positive (OR 2.225 95%CI 1.103–4.489), though it was lower. Conclusions. There exists a higher risk of failure after a two-stage septic replacement when cultures are positive during reimplantation. Patients who followed no antibiotic holidays or antibiotic holidays before reimplantation have similar failure rate when cultures are negative. In both groups they have a higher risk of failure when cultures are positive, having higher risk those positive patients in the antibiotic holidays group. Therefore, importance in detecting these patients before reimplantation is crucial to ensure higher survival rates

Aim. To improve the challenging treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), researchers are constantly developing new handling methods and strategies. In patients with PJI after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and severe local or systemic comorbidities, a two-stage exchange using a temporary antibiotic loaded PMMA-spacer is considered gold standard. This method has undisputed advantages, however, the increased risk of biofilm formation on the spacer surface, bone defects and soft tissue contractions after a six-week spacer interval are severe limitations. Our hypothesis is that a vacuum sealed foam in combination with constant instillation of an antiseptic fluid can address these drawbacks due to a significantly reduced spacer interval. Method. A pilot study was conducted in five PJI cases after TKA with severe comorbidities and/or multiple previous operations to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the proposed method. In the first step, surgical treatment included the explantation of the prosthesis, debridement, and the implantation of the VeraFlo-Dressing foam. The foam is connected to the VAC-Instill-Device via an inflow and an outflow tube. The surgical site is sealed airtight with the VAC-film. During the next 5 days, an antiseptic fluid (Lavasorb® or Taurolidine®) is instilled in a 30-minute interval using the VAC-Instill-Device. The limb is immobilized (no flexion in the knee joint, no weight bearing) for five days. Following that, the second operation is performed in which the VAC-VeraFlo. TM. -Therapy System is explanted and the revision TKA is implanted after debridement of the joint. Results. No serious adverse event occurred during the VAC-Instill spacer treatment. The TKA revision was performed after a mean of 5.4 ± 1.9 days. Mean patient age was 71±6 years with a mean of 6 previous PJI surgeries. Host classification according to McPherson was I/B/3, III/B/3 and III/C/3 in three cases. Out of the five cases included, four were successfully treated and remained infect free to date (mean 14.2 ± 12 months; germs: methicillin-resistant s. aureus, e. coli, staph. lugdunensis and one culture neg.). One case with candida infection of a total femur prosthesis had to be treated with an enucleation of the hip due to rising inflammation parameters and signs of sepsis 7 days after VAC-Instill implantation. Conclusions. The presented data on the VAC-Instill spacer method in septic two-stage revision TKA show promising results regarding feasibility and safety. A prospective randomized controlled examination is in progress to evaluate the possible advantages over a two-stage approach using a standard PMMA spacer

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking. Patients and Methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment for 50 consecutive culture-negative and 50 consecutive culture-positive patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for chronic infection with a minimum follow-up of five years. Results. There was no significant difference in the outcomes between the two groups of patients, with a similar rate of re-infection of 6%, five years post-operatively. Culture-negative PJIs were associated with older age, smoking, referral from elsewhere and pre-operative antibiotic treatment. The samples in the culture-negative patients were negative before the first stage (aspiration), during the first-stage (implant removal) and second-stage procedures (re-implantation). Conclusion. Adherence to strict protocols for selecting and treating culture-negative patients with a PJI using the same two-stage revision approach that we employ for complex culture-positive PJIs is important in order to achieve control of the infection in this difficult group of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;(1 Supple A)100-B:3–8

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

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty performed in case of infection has been considered during many years the gold standard for treatment of chronic infection. Nevertheless, during the last decade, concerns have risen regarding its safety and its efficiency. The purpose of our study was to, first investigate the spacer complications, then to analyze their risks factors. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection who underwent a two stage exchange revision arthroplasty performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluation were performed using the Student and Mann-Whitney tests. Our study confirms the hypothesis of a high-risk strategy with 42% of patients who had a mechanical spacer failure and a 20% recurrence of infection during the average two years period of follow-up. We found a high rate of spacer migration (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to literature. The most important finding was that the majority of spacer complications and failures were found in a population with high medical comorbidities as highlighted by the ASA, Charlson and Lee score associations, as well as with the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney or hepatic chronic conditions. This study showed that a two-stage hip exchange revision is a high-risk procedure regarding complications and mechanical failures of PMMA spacers. In patients with high medical comorbidities, other strategies may be considered and interdisciplinary cooperation with other facilities are needed to identify and control each risk factor

We retrospectively studied the major complications occurring after one- and two-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Between 1999 and 2008, 911 patients underwent 1150 UKRs through a minimally invasive approach in our unit. Of these, 159 patients (318 UKRs) had one-stage and 80 patients (160 UKRs) had two-stage bilateral UKRs. The bilateral UKR groups were comparable in age and American Society of Anaesthesiology grade, but more women were in the two-stage group (p = 0.019). Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in all cases. Major complications were recorded as death, pulmonary embolus, proximal deep-vein thrombosis and adverse cardiac events within 30 days of surgery. No statistical differences between the groups were found regarding the operating surgeon, the tourniquet time or minor complications except for distal deep-vein thrombosis. The anaesthetic times were longer for the two-stage group (p = 0.0001). Major complications were seen in 13 patients (8.2%) with one-stage operations but none were encountered in the two-stage group (p = 0.005). Distal deep-vein thrombosis was more frequent in the two-stage group (p = 0.036). Because of the significantly higher risk of major complications associated with one-stage bilateral UKR we advocate caution before undertaking such a procedure

The increasing infection burden after hip arthroplasty has seen a growth of two-stage exchange and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. We have seen an increased number of failed two-stage revisions over the past decade. This study was aimed at clarifying the outcome of failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty after periprosthetic hip infection. We identified forty-two patients who had undergone at least one prior two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic infection between 2000 and 2012. These patients were referred to our center and treated with a further two-stage exchange. They have been analyzed with a minimum two-year follow-up. Control of infection at two-year follow-up was seen in 57% of patients. In 43% of patients there are still ongoing issues that either required further surgery or ongoing antibiotic suppression. A regression analysis was undertaken which suggested that the immunocompromised host and polymicrobial infection were the greatest predictors of failure. The number of previous interventions, the organism involved and the duration of antibiotic therapy after the initial two-stage revision were not linked to the ultimate outcome. The failure rate of repeat revision two-stage exchange is high and novel methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer interval periods, novel antimicrobial methods and more powerful antibiotic therapies should be investigated

We compared the safety and outcome of one-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty with those of a two-stage procedure during different admissions in a prospective, randomised controlled trial in an Asian population. Of 168 patients included in the study, 83 had a single- and 85 a two-stage procedure. Most of the patients (59.9%) suffered from inflammatory arthritis. The intra-operative complications, early systemic complications, the operating time, positioning of the components, the functional score, restoration of limb length and survival rates at 96 months were similar in the two groups. The total estimated blood loss was significantly lower in patients undergoing a one-stage procedure than in patients who had a two-stage procedure, but the transfusion requirements were significantly higher in the former group (p = 0.001). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group, 7.25 days (. sd. 1.30; 5 to 20) compared with 10 days (. sd. 1.65; 8 to 24) in the two-stage group (p = 0.023). We believe that a one-stage procedure is safe and appropriate in our population

Deep peri-prosthetic infection after partial or total knee arthroplasty is a disconcerting problem for patient and surgeon alike. The diagnosis of infection is sometimes obvious but frequently requires that the surgeon maintain a substantial index of suspicion for infection as the cause of pain or poor outcome after any joint arthroplasty. While surgical debridement with component retention is appropriate in a subgroup of patients with an acute peri-prosthetic infection, most delayed and chronic infections are best treated with component resection. With carefully selected patients and very aggressive debridement protocols some success has been demonstrated in Europe with single-stage exchange for infection. Most surgeons in North America, however, are unfamiliar with the very aggressive debridement techniques employed at European centers that promote single stage replant; and few surgeons in North America are currently comfortable in cementing a hinged total knee replacement in place for the typical infected TKA nor do they have the patience to re-prep and drape with an entirely new OR setup after debridement and prior to the insertion of the new implant − 2 steps that are often mentioned as important to the success of single stage exchange. The pre-eminent role of two-stage exchange as the definitive treatment was established over 30 years ago. Two-stage exchange remains the gold-standard in treatment with an established track record from multiple centers and with multiple different types of infecting organisms. Some of the historical problems with two-stage exchange, such as limited mobility during the interval stage, have been mitigated with the development of effective articulating spacer techniques. Further, the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and the possibility of fungal infection make two-stage exchange the best choice for the majority of patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection in 2017

Patients considered suitable for total hip resurfacing arthroplasty often have bilateral disease. The peri-operative complications, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, outcome and costs in patients undergoing one-stage bilateral total hip resurfacing were compared with a group of patients undergoing a two-stage procedure. A total of 92 patients were included in the study, of which 37 (40%) had a one-stage and 55 (60%) had a two-stage resurfacing. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade between the groups (p = 0.31, p = 0.23, p = 0.13, respectively). There were three systemic complications in the one-stage group (8.1%) and one in the two-stage group (1.8% of patients; 0.9% of procedures). There was no significant difference in the complication rate (p = 0.72) or the transfusion requirements (p = 0.32) between the two groups. The one-stage group had a reduced total hospital stay of five days (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 6.9; p < 0.001), reduced length of time to completion of all surgery of five months (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.3; p < 0.001), and the reduced cost was 35% less than that of a two-stage procedure. However, the total anaesthetic time was significantly longer for the one-stage group (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval 31 to 52). This study demonstrates that consideration should be given to one-stage surgery for patients with bilateral symptomatic disease suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. A one-stage procedure appears to have benefits for both the patient and the hospital without additional complications

Introduction. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute prosthetic hip infection is a popular low morbidity option despite less than optimal success rates. We theorized that the delay between DAIR and explantation in failed cases may complicate eradication due to biofilm maturation and entrenchment of bacteria in periprosthetic bone. We ask, what are the results of two-stage reimplantation after a failed DAIR versus an initial two-stage procedure?. Methods. 114 patients were treated with 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection. 65 were treated initially with a 2-stage exchange, while 49 underwent an antecedent DAIR prior to a 2-stage exchange. Patients were classified according to MSIS host criteria. Failure was defined as return to the OR for infection, a draining sinus, or systemic infection. Results. Treatment failure occurred in 42.9% (21 of 49) of patients treated with an antecedent DAIR. In contrast, treatment failure occurred in only 12.3% (8 of 65) of initial 2-stage procedures (p< 0.001). Relative Risk of return to the OR after a 2-stage reimplantation with an antecedent DAIR compared to initial resection was 4.52 (95% CI 1.71, 11.9). MSIS host grading was similar between groups and did not influence the rate of failure. The DAIR cohort had increased hospitalization length and greater number of operative procedures (p< 0.001). Conclusion. We have shown that if irrigation and debridement fails to treat acute prosthetic hip infection, subsequent attempts at two-stage reimplantation may be compromised. Additionally, in the antecedent DAIR group, the average number of infection-related procedures (5) was nearly twice that of those initially resected (2.7). This by nature implies a significantly greater burden to the patient and cost to the healthcare system

Introduction. Despite several studies, controversies prevailed about the rate of complications following one-stage and two-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA). In current prospective study, we compared the complications and functional outcomes of one-stage and two-stage procedures. Methods. One hundred and eighty patients (ASA class I or II) with bilateral hip osteoarthritis were assigned randomly to two equal groups. Two groups were matched in term of age and sex. All of the surgeries were performed through the Harding approach using uncemented implants. In two-stage procedures, surgeries were performed with 6 months to one year interval. All patients were evaluated one year postoperatively. Results. The Harris hip score averaged 84.1±12.6 and 82.6±15.3 in one-stage and two-stage groups, respectively (p=0.528). The hospital stay was significantly longer in two-stage group (9.8±1.1 versus 4.9±0.8 days). The cumulative hemoglobin drop and number of transfused blood units were the same. One patient in each group developed symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and managed successfully. There was no patient with perioperative death, pulmonary embolism, infection, dislocation, periprosthetic fracture or heterotrophic ossification. No patient required reoperation. Two patients in one-stage group developed unilateral temporary peroneal nerve palsy resolved after 3 and 4 months. Conclusion. The current study showed that one-stage bilateral THA can be used successfully for patients who require bilateral hip arthroplasty without increased rate of complications. The functional and clinical outcomes are comparable and hospital stay is significantly shorter. However, the authors recommend to perform one-stage bilateral THA for healthy patients with ASA class I or II

Aim. Due to medical and organizational factors, it occurs in everyday practice that spacers are left in place longer than originally planned during a two-stage prosthesis exchange in the case of prosthetic joint infections. Patients are severely restricted in their mobility and, after initial antibiotic administration, the spacer itself only acts as a foreign body. The aim of this study is to analyze whether the duration of the spacer in situ has an influence on the long-term success of treatment and mortality. Method. We retrospectively studied all 204 two-stage prosthesis replacements of the hip and knee from 2012 to 2016 with a minimum follow-up of two years at an arthroplasty center with 3 main surgeons. The duration of the spacer interval was divided into two groups. Patients replanted within ten weeks (as is standard in multiple algorithms) after systemic antibiotic treatment were assigned to the ‘Regular Spacer Interval (< 70 days)’ group. If the spacer interval was longer, they were assigned to the ‘Long Spacer Interval (≥ 70 days)’ group. Results. Patients were on average 67.69 years old (SD 12.3). The mean duration of the spacer-interval was 100.9 days (range: 423.0; SD, 60.0). In 62 patients reimplantation could be performed within 70 days after explantation, in 142 patients this took longer (max. 438 days). In 26 patients, the spacer had to be changed at least once during this period (11 patients in the hip group, and 15 patients in the knee group). In the remaining cases, other medical or organizational reasons delayed replantation. Both groups were comparable concerning Charlson Comorbity Index, age, number of previous surgeries and laboratory infection markers. There was no statistically significant influence of the duration of the spacer interval on the infection free survival (n=204, p=0.32). There was also no influence on mortality (n=204, p=0.35) and aseptic implant failure (n=204, p=0.15). Conclusions. The timely replantation of a knee or hip prosthesis seems to be reasonable in general because the patients are strongly limited in their mobility and daily activities by the spacer. However, there does not seem to be a negative influence on infection eradication and survival due to a long spacer interval

Aim. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a severe complications after hip arthroplasty. The infections rate ranges from 0.7 to 1.3 depending on different reports. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the radiological and clinical outcome of patients that underwent two-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip when an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) was necessary to remove the femoral stem. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed data from 84 patients that underwent two-stage revision of the hip between January 2006 and December 2010 at our institution. In forty-nine patients (Group A, 58.3%), the femoral stem was removed without an ETO, while in the remaining thirty-five patients (Group B, 41.7%) an ETO was necessary. In each case a metallic cerclage was used to closure of the flap. The average age for patients in group A was 64.3 years, while the average age in patients in group B was 66.4 years. The mean follow-up was respectively 117 months in group A and 122 months in group B. Eight patients died before the last follow-up, and data from six patients were incomplete. Complications, radiological and clinical outcome were. Mann Whitney U Test and Chi Square Test were used respectively to analyze continues and categorical variables. Cumulative survival of the implants was calculated for reinfection and mechanical complications with Kaplan-Meyer curves. Results. The mean follow-up was 118 months. The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 4.7% at 1 years and 10.7 at last follow-up. No statistically significant (p-value > 0.05) differences were observed in the two groups neither at 1 year nor at last follow up. The cumulative incidence of mechanical complication was 3.6% at 1 year and 8.3% at last follow-up. No statistically significant differences (p-value > 0.05) were observed in the two groups neither at 1 year nor at last follow up. All the patients had the healing of the ETO at six months (mean 11.4 weeks). The mean Harris Hip Score was 77.5. No statistically significant (p-value > 0.05) differences were observed in the two groups. Discussion. The results obtained in this retrospective study demonstrates that there is no difference in terms of reinfection-rate, mechanical complications and clinical outcome in patients that underwent two-stage revision with or without an ETO. In presence of a well-fixed femoral stem, performing an ETO could be helpful to expose the femoral canal facilitating the femoral stem's removal avoiding intra-operative femoral fracture

Background. The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the “gold standard” for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option, however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies to prevent re-infection after prosthetic hip infection. Methods. Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes within two years of revision were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics. Results. In 38 one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0–10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate for 60 two-stage studies was 7.9% (6.2–9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no evidence of publication bias among contributing studies. Conclusion. Among unselected populations, evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data, which is ongoing within our Global Infection Orthopaedic Management (INFORM) collaboration. Level of evidence. Level 2a - Systematic reviews of cohort studies. Funding statement. This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation. We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications. Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate

Abstract. Introduction. The prevalence of recurrent infection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty following failure of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been reported to be 10% to 25%. There is limited literature available on repeat two stage revisions for TKA infection with only small cohorts and variable success rates. Methodology. A retrospective cohort study investigating the outcome of two stage revision arthroplasty for treatment of TKA infection was conducted with the aim of identifying factors linked to recurrence of infection. A consecutive cohort of all microbiology intra-operative periprosthetic knee samples from a single revision arthroplasty centre between January 2010 and December 2016 was identified. The final cohort consisted of 658 samples taken during 64 patients undergoing two stage revision knee surgery for infection. Patient demographics, medical and orthopaedic history data including post-operative outcomes and subsequent treatment was obtained from the electronic records system and medical notes. Results. 65.6% of the cohort (N=42) had successful eradication of their infection. For the twenty-two patients that had failure of their two stage revision, twenty patients had samples available from further surgical intervention. Sixteen patients (80%) had different organisms isolated when they had repeat surgical samples taken when compared to their first stage samples. Overall, for subsequent treatments there was a success rate of 75% if the same organism was identified and 62.5% if there were new isolated organisms. Conclusion. These findings may have implications for the treatment strategies chosen for re-infection after two stage TKA revisions if new causative organisms are isolated

Introduction. Two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip is the standard of care with a 5–10% recurrence at a minimum two-year follow-up. Compiling outcomes data for this standard of care is necessary in order to characterize long-term reinfection risk and the culpable microbiology. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term success of two-stage reimplantation and identify the factors that affected the success. Methods. We performed a systematic review of randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case series through May 2019, searching Embase, Medline via PubMed, and Cochrane Library for the concept of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of hip and knee PJIs, yielding 464 unique citations for abstract review, of which 135 were reviewed in full. Our parameters of interest included: reinfection and mortality events following successful reimplantation, the timing of these events, and the microbiology of index and recurrent infections. Results. Meeting our criteria were 59 studies with 4,494 patients (1,842 hips) who had completed reimplantation. Among successfully reimplanted hips, 4.76% (95% CI, 2.00–8.41) were reinfected by 24 months, 6.84% (4.92–9.02) were reinfected by final follow-up, 1.6% (0.32–3.52) were reinfected with an identical organism(s) with identical resistance, and 2.55% (0.77–5.03) were reinfected with a novel organism(s) or novel resistance. In 24 studies with reinfected patients and sufficient data, 8 studies reported an average interval from reimplantation to reinfection greater than 24 months, and 14 reported at least 1 patient with a reinfection event greater than 48 months following reimplantation. Conclusion. The results from this review determined that the host of an index PJI faces ongoing risk of recurrent infection years into the post-operative period despite initial eradication and that novel microbiology is the cause of a significant proportion of failures. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Patients with knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) frequently receive one- or two-stage revision. To explore the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing methods, we analysed a UK registry, interviewed patients and surgeons, systematically reviewed literature, held a consensus meeting, and assessed progress of an RCT in hip PJI. In 2014, in England and Wales, knee PJI was treated with one- or two-stage procedures in 19% and 71% of patients respectively. Between 2007 and 2014, use of one-stage procedures doubled and, in major centres, up to 42% of treatments were one-stage. We conducted in-depth interviews with 16 patients with knee PJI and 11 surgeons performing one- or two-stage revision. Patients considered randomisation acceptable with appropriate counselling and, depending on infecting organisms and health status, surgeons would randomise treatments. In meta-analysis, two-year re-infection rates in 10 one-stage series (423 patients) and 108 two-stage series (5,129 patients) were 7.6% (95%CI 3.4,13.1) and 8.8% (7.2,10.6) respectively. In a series of patients with knee PJI, surgeons from 2 major centres considered 6/15 patients eligible for either treatment, with 4 more potentially eligible after treatment of soft tissue infection. In an ongoing RCT of surgical treatment of hip PJI, 116 patients have been randomised at 14 centres in 3 years. Randomising patients with PJI is feasible but, as knee PJI is uncommon, a multicentre RCT would be required. Based on WOMAC score outcome and appropriate assumptions on eligibility and acceptability, 170 patients would need to be randomised over 4 years at 14 major centres

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

Infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. With an ageing population and increased demands for THA, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is expected to become an even greater problem in the future. In late PJI a one- or two-stage revision procedure is most often used. Factors determining the outcomes are not fully understood and there is controversy in the choice between the two methods. The, two-stage method in infected THA is regarded as more resource demanding and is associated with a high distress in the patients. The aim of this study was to compare the risk for second revision (re-revision) between one- and two-stage revision. During 1979–2015, 1659 first-time revisions performed due to infection were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Two-stage revision was the most common procedure (n=1255). Risk for a re-revision was compared between one- and two-stage revision using Cox-regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis and method of fixation. The primary end-point was a re-revision regardless of cause. Aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation necessitating re-revision were used as secondary outcomes. There was no difference in risk of re-revision regardless of cause (HR (one-stage/two-stage)=0.9, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.1, p=0.3), re-revision due to aseptic loosening (HR=1.1, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.6, p=0.7) or re-revision due to infection (HR=0.7, 95% C.I.=0.5–1.1, p=0.2). Dislocation necessitating a re-revision was less common in the one-stage group (HR=0.4, 95% C.I.=0.2–0.9, p=0.03). In this analysis re-revision rates were similar in the two groups. When analysed specifically for infection, risk of re-revision did not differ between one and two stage revision. Our findings confirm recent systematic reviews on the matter. This observational study supports increased utilisation of the one-stage approach. However prospective randomized studies are needed to validate these findings

Joint replacement is a highly effective intervention to treat osteoarthritis of the hip, relieving pain and improving mobility and quality of life.(1) Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after arthroplasty. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention are treatment of first choice in case of early infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA).(2) In case of persisting infection, one- or two-stage revision needs to be performed.(3) The use of different kinds of spacers has been widely debated in the past years.(4). The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer should be used during the interval of two-stage revision of an infected THA. A search term with Boolean operators was constructed. We extracted all information regarding study and patient characteristics and baseline clinical and laboratory findings. Data regarding type of spacer and antibiotics used, timing of second stage surgery, tissue culture results, postoperative regimen, functional outcome and patient satisfaction were extracted. A total of twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria and were included for data analysis. Ten studies described various preformed spacers, six studies described functional spacers and eleven studies described custom made spacers. See Table 1 for results. Research should focus on finding the preferred type of treatment and type of spacer to combine a high success rate of infection treatment with a good functional and patient reported outcome. There is a need for a prospective study evaluating patient satisfaction and functional outcome after two-stage revision THA comparing various spacers. Secondly, research should focus on the optimal timing of the second stage procedure. Functional spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after two-stage revisionTHA to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer

Aim. The optimal surgical approach for patients hospitalized for moderate to severe septic bursitis is not known, and there have been no randomized trials of a one-stage compared with a two-stage (i.e., bursectomy, followed by closure in a second procedure) approach. Thus, we performed a prospective, non-blinded, randomized study of adult patients hospitalized for an open bursectomy. Method. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a one-stage vs. a two-stage surgical approach. All patients received postsurgical oral antibiotic therapy for 7 days. These are the final results of the prospective study registered at ClinicalTrials (NCT01406652). Results. Among 164 enrolled patients, 130 had bursitis of the elbow and 34 of the patella. The surgical approach used was one-stage in 79 and two-stage in 85. The two groups were balanced with regards to sex, age, causative pathogens, levels of serum inflammatory markers, co-morbidities, and cause of bursitis. Overall, there were 22 treatment failures: 8/79 (10%) in the one-stage arm and 14/85 (16%) in the two-stage arm (Pearson-χ2-test; p=0.23). Recurrent infection was caused by the same pathogen a total of 7 patients (4%), and by a different pathogen in 5 episodes (3%). The incidence of infection recurrence was not significantly different between those in the one- vs. two-stage arms (6/79 vs. 8/85; χ2-test: p=0.68). In contrast, outcomes were better in the one- vs. two-stage arm for wound dehiscence (2/79[3%] vs. 10/85[12%]; p=0.02), median length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 6 days), nurses’ workload (605 vs. 1055 points) and total costs (6,881 vs. 11,178 Swiss francs) (all p<0.01). Conclusions. For adult patients with moderate to severe septic bursitis requiring hospital admission, bursectomy with primary closure, together with 7 days of systemic antibiotic therapy, was safe, resource-saving and effective. Using a two-stage approach did not reduce the risk of infectious recurrence, and may be associated with a higher rate of wound dehiscence than the one-stage approach

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

Aim. In two-stage replacements for septic loosening, some studies have suggested that associate bacterial colonization of spacers had a worse result in relation to the control of the infection and a higher rate of complications after the implantation of the definitive prosthesis. The aim of our study was to determine the reoperation rate of patients undergoing two-stage revision surgery according to the results of spacer sonication. Method. A retrospective observational study was conducted in which 56 hip or knee spacers implanted at our center from 2010 to 2017 were analysed. Patients were grouped into three categories:. Patients with positive spacer sonication fluid culture, with or without positive cultures from the rest of the samples. Patients with negative spacer sonication culture and negative second-stage intraoperative cultures. Patients with negative spacer sonication culture but positive cultures of the rest of intraoperative samples. Results. Of the 56 patients analysed, 11 were included in group A, 32 in group B and 13 in group C. The reoperation rate was 36%, 34% and 54% respectively. Reoperation rate due to infection was 9%, 25% and 46% respectively. In only two cases (both in group C), the reoperation was caused by infection by a previously isolated microorganism. Spacers were colonized in all cases by low virulence microorganisms (coagulase negative staphylococci, P. acnes or Candida). Within group A, six patients also had other positive cultures. Conclusions. In our study, bacterial colonization of the spacer is not associated with a higher rate of reoperations in the short-medium term. The group of patients with positive cultures in the second stage surgery was the one with the highest rate of reoperations

Introduction: Patients suitable for hip resurfacing are often young, active, in employment and have bilateral disease. One-stage bilateral total hip replacement has been demonstrated to be as safe as a two-stage procedure and more cost effective. The aim of this study was to compare the results of one-stage with two stage bilateral hip resurfacing. Methods: Between July 1994 and August 2006 a consecutive series of 93 patients underwent bilateral hip resurfacing within a year. 34 patients in the one-stage group. 44 patients in the two-stage group. The age, gender, diagnosis, ASA grade, total operative time, blood transfusion requirements, medical and surgical complications, length of stay, revision and costs were recorded. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, and ASA grade between the two groups. There were 4 minor complications in the one stage group and 5 in the two-stage group. All complications were of a short-term nature. There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion requirements. There was a significantly longer total mean hospital stay of 5 days (95% c.i. 4.0–6.9) for the two-stage group. No patients had undergone a revision. The hospital received a mean of £6338 per patient for the one-stage group and a mean of £9726 per patient for the two-stage group. However, this included a longer total hospital stay, two anaesthetics and on average two extra out-patient appointments. Conclusions: This study demonstrates no detrimental effects when performing a one-stage bilateral hip resurfacing in comparison to a two-stage procedure. The advantages of the one-stage procedure are that total hospital stay is reduced by a mean of 5 days and the cost is reduced by a mean of £3388 per patient, a 35% reduction of the cost of a two-stage procedure. These benefits do not appear to come at the cost of increase complications

Introduction. It is still controversial whether one or two-stage revision should be indicated for deeply infected hip prosthesis, and there are no scoring systems for the decision of them. An assessment system for the treatment of deeply infected hip prosthesis was evaluated for the patients who had undergone one or two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Materials and Methods. Between February 2001 and November 2009, revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 60 hips on 59 patients by the senior authors. Nineteen hips underwent one-stage revision THA using antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (ALAC), and 41 hips did two-stage revision THA using ALAC beads, based on the criteria by Jackson and Schmalzried. This study included 47 revisions in 47 patients for which a minimum follow-up of two years (average 4.7 years). Six parameters were employed in the assessment system: 1) general condition, 2) duration of infection, 3) wound complication after initial operation, 4) microorganism, 5) C-reactive protein (CRP), and 6) necessity for grafting bone. Each parameter ranged from 0 to 2 points, giving a full score of 12 points. Healing was defined as the lack of clinical signs and symptoms of infection, a CRP level < 10 mg/l or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate < 20 mm/h, and the absence or radiological signs of infection at the follow-up visit > 24 months after first revision, described by Giulieri et al. Results. Forty-five hips (95.7%) were free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Healing rates in one and two-stage revision THA were 93.3% (14/15) and 96.9% (31/32). Of the 15 patients in one-stage revision THA, the average total score in success and failed cases were 9.7 ± 0.7 points (range, 9 to 11 points) and 6 points, respectively. Of the 32 patients in two-stage revision THA, the average total score in success, recurred and failed cases were 8.3 ± 1.6 points (6 to 11 points), 9.5 ± 0.6 points (9 to 10 points) and 5 points, respectively. In one or two-stage revision THA, the average total score of the success cases was high compared with that of the failed case. There were significant differences of the average total score in success cases between the one and two-stage revision THAs (p<0.05). Conclusions. A one-stage revision THA for deeply infected hip prosthesis should be performed on those cases who scored above 9 points, while a palliative operation may be indicated for those who scored under 5 points. However, it is difficult to forecast the recurrence using only this scoring system

Introduction. Infection remains as one of the major challenges of total joint surgery. One-stage irrigation, debridement and reimplantation, or two-stage revision surgery with a temporary implantation of antibiotic eluting bone cement spacer followed by reimplantation are two methods often used to treat infected patients with mixed outcomes. Like bone cement, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) can also be used as a carrier for antibiotics. Recently, we demonstrated that vancomycin and rifampin can be delivered from UHMWPE implants at therapeutic levels to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in a lupine animal model. There are regulatory challenges in translating these types of combination devices to clinical use. Last year, at this meeting, we presented the preliminary pre-clinical testing for a temporary UHMWPE spacer containing gentamicin sulfate as a first step towards clinical use. Since then, we carried out a survey among the Knee Society membership about their preference for spacer use in two-stage revision surgery and found that 43% prefer to use a CoCr femoral component on an all-poly cemented tibial insert, 22% prefer bone cement spacers molded in the OR, 20% prefer static bone cement spacers, and 14% prefer pre-formed bone cement spacers. We modified our implant design based on the majority's preference for a total knee system, rather than bone cement spacers, in the temporary two-stage approach. In this study, we explored the effect of gentamicin sulfate (GS) elution from UHMWPE/GS tibial inserts on bacterial colonization on CoCr surfaces. Methods. We characterized the gentamicin sulfate (GS) particles with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We molded UHMWPE/GS powder blends and characterized the morphology using SEM and Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS). We submerged samples of molded UHMWPE/GS in buffered phosphate solution (PBS) at 37°C and quantified the extent of GS elution into PBS with a method described by Gubernator et al. using o-phthaladehyde (OPA) [1]. Under basic conditions, OPA reacts with primary amino groups to form fluorescent complexes. Since gentamicin is the only source of such amino acids in our elution samples, the number of fluorescent complexes formed is directly proportional to the amount of gentamicin in the sample. Using this method, we could quantify gentamicin elution by measuring sample fluorescence post OPA-reaction. We used a plate reader to excite the fluorescent complexes formed in the OPA reaction and measured the resulting emission at wavelengths of 340 nm and 455 nm, respectively. We also quantified the effect of the standard cleaning protocol (heated sonication in alkaline water and alcohol) used to clean UHMWPE implants on subsequent GS elution from UHMWPE/GS samples using the OPA method. We used agar diffusion tests to characterize antibacterial properties of UHMWPE/GS samples after cleaning. For these tests, we collected eluents collected from UHMWPE/GS and gentamicin-impregnated bone cement (BC/GS) following 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks of elution, and tested against S. aureus (ATCC 12600). We used the “daughter cells” method developed by Bechert et al. to assess anticolonizing properties of UHMWPE/GS [2,3]. We also characterized the colonization of bacteria on CoCr surfaces in the presence of GS eluting from UHMWPE/GS test samples. For this we modified a Pin-on-Disc (PoD) wear tester: An UHMWPE/GS pin and UHMWPE pin (control) articulated against an implant-finish CoCr disc with Tryptic Soy Broth containing S. Aureus as the lubricant. After 18 hrs, we rinsed the articular surfaces of the pin and disc and stamped them onto Agar gel to transfer any adherent bacteria. We incubated the Agar plate overnight such that adherent bacteria proliferated and became visible. Results. SEM characterized the GS particles as hollow spheres (Fig 1a). These formed small groups of agglomerated domains at the virgin resin boundaries of UHMWPE after molding (Fig 1b). Sulfur signature from the EDS analysis identified the agglomerated domains as GS particles (Fig 2). Elution of GS started with an initial burst and was followed by steady elution up to 12 weeks (Fig 3). Cleaning reduced the initial burst GS elution; and the elution remained unchanged after 2 days (Fig 4). The agar diffusion test showed simmilar inhibition zones for the eluents collected from UHMWPE/GS and BC/GS, suggesting that these samples yield similar antibacterial activity against S. aureus (Fig 5). UHMWPE/GS demonstrated pronounced anticolonizing properties, effectively mitigating the proliferation of S. aureus “daughter” cells. Anticolonizing activity of Palacos R+G was not significantly different when compared with UHMWPE/GS. The PoD test showed little-to-no colonization of CoCr surfaces in the presence of UHMWPE/GS pins, indicative of excellent antibacterial properties of UHMWPE/GS against S. aureus. Conclusion. SEM and EDS has allowed us to visualize domains of gentamicin sulfate particles in UHMWPE. Our OPA method has greater precision than traditional agar-well diffusion methods of measuring gentamicin concentration and showed that gentamicin sulfate-loaded UHMWPE elutes at the same rate as Palacos R+G. Pin-on-disc experiments and the daughter cell method both confirmed that these two materials have similar anticolonization abilities. We also found that using the standard cleaning protocol for UHMWPE orthopedic implants decreased the burst of gentamicin eluting from UHMWPE, but after 2 days, it had no effect compared to uncleaned UHMWPE/GS. Finally, we found that UHMWPE/GS can reduce the colonization of bacteria on CoCr. UHMWPE/GS continues to be a promising material for treating PJI. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is increasingly common. Patients suitable for hip resurfacing are often young, more active, may be in employment and may have bilateral disease. One-stage bilateral total hip replacement has been demonstrated to be as safe as a two-stage procedure and more cost effective. The aim of this study was to compare the in-patient events, outcome and survival in patients undergoing one-stage resurfacing with a two-stage procedure less than one-year apart. Methods. Between July 1994 and August 2006 a consecutive series of 93 patients underwent bilateral hip resurfacing within a year. 34 patients in the one-stage group. 44 patients in the two-stage group. The age, gender, diagnosis, ASA grade, total operative time, blood transfusion requirements, medical complication, surgical complications, length of stay, duration of treatment, revision and Oxford hip scores were recorded. Results. There were no significant differences in age, gender, ASA grade between the one-stage and the two-stage. There were 4 minor complications in the one stage group and 5 in the two-stage group. All patients that suffered a complication made a full recovery. There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion requirements. The mean anaesthetic time was 136 minutes in the one stage group and 92 minutes in the two-stage group with a significant mean difference of 44 minutes(95% c.i. 31–52). The mean total length of hospital stay was 11 days in the one-stage group and 16 days in the two-stage group with a significant mean difference of 5 days(95\% c.i. 4.0–6.9). The mean difference in length of treatment time of 6.5 months was significant(95\% c.i. 4.0–9.0). No patients have undergone a revision procedure during the study period and no patient is awaiting revision surgery. Conclusions. This study demonstrates no detrimental effects when performing a one-stage bilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in comparison to a two-stage procedure. There are advantages of a one-stage procedure over a two-stage procedure for bilateral disease. Total hospital stay is reduced by 31.3% and the mean length of treatment is reduced by 50.0%. These benefits do not appear to come at the cost of increase complications. The complication rate in both groups was very low and all of the complications were short-term and are unlikely to have any bearing on the longevity of the prosthesis

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of positive cultures during the second stage of a two-stage revision arthroplasty and to analyse the association between positive cultures and an infection-free outcome. Patients and Methods. This single-centre retrospective review of prospectively collected data included patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of either the hip or the knee between 2013 and 2015, who were treated using a standardised diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm with two-stage exchange. Failure of treatment was assessed according to a definition determined by a Delphi-based consensus. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure. The mean follow-up was 33 months (24 to 48). Results. A total of 163 two-stage revision arthroplasties involving 84 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 79 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were reviewed. In 27 patients (16.6%), ≥ 1 positive culture was identified at re-implantation and eight (29.6%) of these subsequently failed compared with 20 (14.7%) patients who were culture-negative. The same initially infecting organism was isolated at re-implantation in nine of 27 patients (33.3%). The organism causing re-infection in none of the patients was the same as that isolated at re-implantation. The risk of the failure of treatment was significantly higher in patients with a positive culture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 3.0; p = 0.049) and in patients with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 1.8; p = 0.001). Conclusion. Positive culture at re-implantation was independently associated with subsequent failure. Surgeons need to be aware of this association and should consider the medical optimisation of patients with severe comorbidities both before and during treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1490–5

Purpose. Two-stage revision with the removal of all prosthesis has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stem is technically challenging and may cause excessive bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare the results between retention and removal of femoral stem when performing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. Materials & Methods. From 2007 to 2014, ninety-four patients with infection after hip arthroplasty were treated by using two-stage exchange protocol with temporary articulating spacers. Among them, 38 patients completed the planned second stage reimplantation. Stem was exchanged in 15 patients (group I) and retained in 23 patients (group II). We retrospectively investigated the clinical and radiographic results after an average 39.9 months follow up. Results. The rate of infection control was 86.6% (13/15) in group I, 86.9% (20/23) in group II. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in term of demographics or presence of resistant organism. Conclusion. Retention of well-fixed cementless stem during two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty could be alternative treatment option for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection

Different therapeutic options for prosthetic joint infections exist, but surgery remains the key. With a two-stage exchange procedure, a success rate above 90% can be expected. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal duration between explantation and the reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes between short-interval and long-interval two-stage exchanges. Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis. 145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19–103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10–402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5–152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table. The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome

Aims. We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 96 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI. The mean follow-up was 90 months (SD 32). Septic failure was assessed using a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any further surgery undertaken for aseptic mechanical causes was considered as aseptic failure. The cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis was used to predict the risk of septic failure. A regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic failure. The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was also analyzed. Results. There were 23 septic failures at final follow-up, with a cumulative incidence of 14% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8% to 22%) at one year, 18% (95% CI 11% to 27%) at two years, 22% (95% CI 14% to 31%) at five years, and 23% (95% CI 15% to 33%) at ten years. Having at least one positive culture (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.19 to 4.74); p = 0.013), or a positive intraoperative frozen section (HR 2.55 (IQR 1.06 to 6.15); p = 0.037) was significantly associated with septic failure after reimplantation. With dislocation being the most common cause of aseptic revision (5.2%), the cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 1% (95% CI 0% to 5%) at one year, 6% (95% CI 1% to 8%) at five years, and 8% (95%CI 3% to 17%) at ten years. Conclusion. If there is no recurrent infection in the five years following reimplantation, the chances of further infection thereafter are remote. While the results of a frozen section may be a reliable guide to the timing of reimplantation, intraoperative culture has, currently, only prognostic value. Surgeons should be aware that instability remains a potential indication for further revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):79–86

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. The aim of this study was to determine if a three-month course of microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduces the rate of failure due to further infection following two-stage revision for chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee. Methods. A total of 185 patients undergoing a two-stage revision in seven different centres were prospectively enrolled. Of these patients, 93 were randomized to receive microorganism-directed oral antibiotics for three months following reimplantation; 88 were randomized to receive no antibiotics, and four were withdrawn before randomization. Of the 181 randomized patients, 28 were lost to follow-up, six died before two years follow-up, and five with culture negative infections were excluded. The remaining 142 patients were followed for a mean of 3.3 years (2.0 to 7.6) with failure due to a further infection as the primary endpoint. Patients who were treated with antibiotics were also assessed for their adherence to the medication regime and for side effects to antibiotics. Results. Nine of 72 patients (12.5%) who received antibiotics failed due to further infection compared with 20 of 70 patients (28.6%) who did not receive antibiotics (p = 0.012). Five patients (6.9%) in the treatment group experienced adverse effects related to the administered antibiotics severe enough to warrant discontinuation. Conclusion. This multicentre randomized controlled trial showed that a three-month course of microorganism-directed, oral antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of failure due to further infection following a two-stage revision of total hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):3–9

Failure of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) poses a major clinical challenge. There is a paucity of information regarding the outcome of further surgical intervention in these patients. Thus, we aim to report the clinical outcomes of subsequent surgical intervention following a failed prior two-stage exchange. Our institutional database was used to identify 60 patients (42 knees and 18 hips) with a failed prior two-stage exchange from infection, who underwent further surgical intervention between 1998 and 2012 and had a minimum of two years follow-up. A retrospective review was performed to extract relevant clinical information, such as mortality, microbiology, and subsequent surgeries. Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were used to define PJI, and treatment success was defined using the Delphi criteria as previously reported. Irrigation and debridement (I&D) was performed after a failed two-stage exchange in 61.7% (37/60) patients. The failure rate of I&D in this cohort was 51.3% (19/37). Two patients underwent amputation after I&D due to uncontrolled infection. A total of 40 patients underwent an intended a second two-stage exchange. Reimplantation occurred in only 65% of cases (26/40), and infection was controlled in 61.6% (16/26) of patients. An interim spacer exchange was required in 15% (6/40) of the cases. Of the 14 cases that did not undergo a second stage reimplantation, 5 required amputation, 6 had retained spacers, 1 underwent arthrodesis, and 2 patients died. Further surgical intervention after a failed prior two-stage exchange has poor outcomes. I&D has a high failure rate and many of the patients who are deemed candidates for a second two-stage exchange either do not undergo reimplantation for various reasons or fail after reimplantation. The management of PJI clearly remains imperfect, and there is a dire need for further innovations that may improve the care of these PJI patients

Introduction. Single-stage resection and reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of recent interest, yet outcomes may be skewed by selected populations with healthier patients and less virulent organisms. This study quantified the effectiveness of a contemporary, evidence-based and standardized two-stage treatment protocol in patients with THA PJI including chronically infected, poor hosts. Methods. Sixty-one consecutive two-stage resection and reimplantation THAs for PJI between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed in a prospectively collected registry database. Patients were categorized with McPherson's Staging System and infection was defined by MSIS criteria. Contemporary standardized protocols were adhered to including implant resection and meticulous surgical debridement, six-week intravenous antibiotics with a high-dose antibiotic spacer, a two-week drug holiday, and laboratory assessment of infection eradication prior to reimplantation. Extended antibiotics after reimplantation were not routinely used. Successful treatment was defined as reimplantation with component retention at minimum two-year follow-up. Results. After exclusions for confounds, 43 of 47 patients had obtained minimum two-year follow-up (mean 50.9 months). 54% were male with an average BMI of 31 kg/m2. 56% were chronically infected poor hosts (Stage III-B/C). Three patients required repeat debridement and/or spacer exchange prior to final reimplantation. Treatment success rate was 95% at two-year follow-up. Success did not vary based on patient sex, age, BMI, or multi-organism PJI (p ≥ 0.117). There were no failures in the early postoperative PJI group (stage I), and both failures occurred in the late chronic PJI group (stage III). Conclusion. Our success rate with the two-stage procedure equals or exceeds that of single-stage treatment, even in an unselected cohort of chronically infected poor hosts. More rigorous scientific comparative studies are warranted prior to indiscriminate adoption of the single-stage treatment approach for PJI in THA

Two-stage treatment of chronically infected TKA is the most common form of management in North America and most parts of the world. One-stage management has pros and cons which will not be discussed in this lecture. There is great variation of techniques and timing and little data to definitively support one technique or timing approach vs. another. Most methods are based on empirical success and logic. At the time of surgery, the first step is removal of infected implants. All metallic implants and cement should be removed. The most common places to leave cement behind inadvertently include patellar lug holes, femoral lug holes, and the anterior proximal tibia behind the tibial tubercle. Formal synovectomy should be performed. The next step is typically antibiotic-impregnated spacer placement. There are pros and cons of dynamic and static spacers with no clear evidence of superiority of one vs. another. Dynamic spacers work satisfactorily with mild to moderate bone loss, but more severe bone loss is usually better treated with static spacers and a cast. Most antibiotic spacers are made of methyl methacrylate cement with addition of high-dose antibiotics. In most cases, doses of 4–8 gm of antibiotics per pack of cement are preferred. The type of dosing depends on the specific antibiotic and the type of cement used. The most common antibiotics used are vancomycin and gentamycin. When the femoral canals have been instrumented, antibiotic-impregnated cement wands are usually placed in the medullary canal, as the medullary canals have been shown to have high risk of residual bacteria being present. The resection interval may vary and there is no clear evidence of a “best” resection interval. Practically speaking, most surgeons use a resection period of 8–16 weeks depending on the type of spacer utilised. During the resection interval, serum markers (ESR and CRP) are followed periodically. One anticipates a decline or normalization of these parameters prior to second stage reimplantation procedure. There has not been a demonstrated advantage to reaspiration of the knee before reimplantation in most circumstances. At the time of reimplantation, the spacers are removed and the knee is redebrided. The key at the time of reimplantation is to obtain good implant fixation but to also balance this with the potential for manageable extraction of the implants at some later date. Good implant fixation is important because failure rates due to mechanical failure are approximately equal to those of failure due to reinfection by 10 years. It is important to remember that reinfection risk is at least 10% by ten years, and therefore extractability of implants is also important. Post-operative management typically includes IV antibiotics, followed by oral antibiotics until final intra-operative cultures are available. The results of two-stage reimplantation are reported in many series. Most show approximately 85–95% rate of successful eradication of infection in the first five years. Reinfections, often with different organisms, may occur even late after reimplantation. By ten years after surgery survival free of mechanical failure and infection in most series drops to 80% or less due to recurrent infections and mechanical failures

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the serum level of interleukin 6 (IL-6) could be used to identify the persistence of infection after the first stage of a two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection. . Between 2010 and 2011, we prospectively studied 55 patients (23 men, 32 women; mean age 69.5 years; 36 to 86) with a periprosthetic joint infection. Bacteria were identified in two intra-operative tissue samples during re-implantation in 16 patients. These cases were classified as representing persistent infection. To calculate a precise cut-off value which could be used in everyday clinical practice, a 3 x 2 contingency table was constructed and manually defined. We found that a serum IL-6 ≥ 13 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating infection: its positive-predictive value is 90.9%. A serum IL-6 ≤ 8 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating an absence of infection: its negative predictive value is 92.1%. The serum IL-6 level seems to be a reasonable marker for identifying persistent infection after the first stage of a revision joint arthroplasty and before attempting re-implantation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:71–5

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of transferring patients to a specialized arthroplasty centre between the first and second stages (interstage) of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. Patients and Methods. A search of our institutional database was performed to identify patients having undergone two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for PJI. Two cohorts were created: continuous care (CC) and transferred care (TC). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between cohorts. Results. A total of 137 patients were identified: 105 in the CC cohort (56 men, 49 women; mean age 67.9) and 32 in the TC cohort (17 men, 15 women; mean age 67.8 years). PJI organism virulence was greater in the CC cohort (36.2% vs 15.6%; p = 0.030). TC patients had a higher rate of persisting or recurrent infection (53.6% vs 13.4%; p < 0.001), soft-tissue complications (31.3 vs 14.3%; p = 0.030), and reduced requirement for porous metal augments (78.1% vs 94.3%; p = 0.006). Repeat first stage debridement after transfer led to greater need for plastic surgical procedures (58.3% vs 0.0%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Patient transfer during the interstage of treatment for infected TKA leads to poorer outcomes compared with patients receiving all their treatment at a specialized arthroplasty centre. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1087–1092

Introduction and purpose: Two-stage reimplantation of a hip replacement is the treatment of choice for deep periprosthetic infections. The purpose of this study is to analyse the survival of the femoral component in two-stage hip replacement reimplantations and compare the results of cemented and cementless components. Materials and methods: Between 1988 and 1998 our hospital carried out 169 two-stage reimplantations for treatment of first episodes of deep infection. The femoral component was cemented in 121 cases and cementless in 48. All patients were followed up clinically and radiologically for at least five years. Results: The two-stage revision was associated with a significant clinical improvement. The reinfection rate was 9% (16/169), of which 11 patients underwent revision surgery and five received chronic suppressive antibiotic treatment. Eight patients required revision due to aseptic loosening and two for periprosthetic fracture. With the numbers available, fixation with or without cement showed no significant differences. Conclusions: The two-stage revision of an infected hip prosthesis resolved the infection in 91% of the cases. An additional 5% required revision due to aseptic loosening. The surgical outcomes seem to be independent of the femoral component fixation (cemented or cementless)

Two-stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years. At our institution our choice of spacer for 2-stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two-stage, overall infection control was 98%. In addition, we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores. While the articulated spacers were our treatment of choice in 2-stage exchange, around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee). At our institution, we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all-polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. Around the same time as we instituted the change in articulated spacers, results out of Europe were showing promising results with one-stage exchange. In September 2015, our technique was modified to now include an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. To date we have no results but it is our hope that a high percent of these will achieve stable fixation and will then have a one-stage exchange

Aim. Identification of the causal pathogen is crucial in the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Unfortunately, it was often difficult and negative culture could be a common findings. This situation made the treatment of PJI of the hip became more challenging. The negative culture finding resulted in a doubtful diagnosis of infection, and poses difficulty in choosing the appropriate antibiotics. Here we compared the treatment outcome of two-stage revision arthroplasty for culture-negative versus culture-positive PJI of the hip. Method. We retrospectively reviewed patients who received two-stage revision for PJI of the hip between January 2010 to June 2015. All patients was planned to received articulated antibiotic cement-spacer as the first stage and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the second stage of the procedure. Out of total 94 patients, 10 patients was loss to follow-up and excluded from the study. We devided the rest of 84 patients into two groups: culture-negative group (n: 27) and culture-positive group (n: 57). We compared all relevant medical records and the treatment outcome between the two groups. Results. The mean of follow-up was 29.5 months (range, 12–78) in culture-negative group and 30.9 months (range, 12–71) in culture-positive group (p = 0.74). The overall negative culture finding rate was 30.8%. There was no significant difference on baseline data between the two groups including: age, gender, body mass index, preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP), preoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate and preoperative white blood count, type of hip arthroplasty, previous history of irrigation and debridement (I & D), and preoperative Harris hip score (HHS). However, culture-negative group has significantly higher number on history of preoperative antibiotic use (p = 0.003). The reimplantation rate was 96.3% and 91.2% in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p= 0.39). The infection recurrency rate after reimplantation was 7.7% and 15.4% in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p= 0.33). The overall infection control rate was 92.6% (25/27) and 82.4% (47/57) in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p = 0.21). We also observed no significant difference on the time interval between stage, time to normal CRP, time to recurrency and complications rate between the two groups. A higher postoperative HHS was obtained in culture-negative group (p = 0.04). Conclusions. Negative culture finding was not resulted in an inferior treatment outcome compared to culture-positive group in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip which treated with two-stage revision arthroplasty

Introduction. While knee arthrodesis is a salvage option for recalcitrant total knee arthroplasty (TKA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) it is used relatively uncommonly and contemporary data are limited. We sought to determine the reliability, durability and safety of knee arthrodesis as the definitive treatment for complex, persistently infected TKA in a modern series of patients. Methods. We retrospectively identified 41 knees treated from 2002–2016 with a deliberate, two-stage knee arthrodesis protocol (TKA resection, high-dose antibiotic spacer, targeted IV antibiotics and followed by subsequent knee arthrodesis) in patients with complex TKA PJI. Mean age was 64 years & mean BMI was 39 kg/m. 2. Mean follow-up was 4 years. The extensor mechanism was deficient in 66% of knees, and flap coverage was required in 34% of knees. The majority of patients were host grade B (56%) or C (29%), and extremity grade of 3 (71%). Twenty-nine percent had poly-microbial infections, and 49% had multi-drug resistant organisms. Fixation included intramedullary nail (61%), external fixator (24%), and dual plating (15%). Results. Two patients (5%) required amputation for persistently infected non-unions; therefore, limb salvage was accomplished in 95% of patients. After initial treatment, there were non-unions in 24% and persistent infection in 17%. Non-union was significantly correlated with persistent infection, with 50% of non-unions having persistent infection compared with just 6% of united knees (p=0.006). External fixation was a significant risk factor for non-union (70%) compared to intramedullary fixation (8%; p=0.005). Overall, twenty-seven complications occurred in 20 patients and 31% required reoperation other than external fixator removal. Intramedullary fixation led to a 90% rate of both infection control and radiographic union. Conclusion. Two-stage knee arthrodesis using a deliberate protocol (resection, high-dose abx spacer, targeted IV abx, and subsequent arthrodesis) ultimately achieved successful limb salvage in 95% of patients with complex infected TKA. One or more complications occurred in nearly half the patients and reoperation was required for 1-in-3. That substantial risk of complications is not surprising as this large contemporary series included complex, worst-case infected TKA in which: 2/3 had disrupted extensor mechanism, 1/3 required flap coverage, and the majority had poly-microbial or multi-drug resistant organisms. Summary. For contemporary patients with very complex, infected TKA a two-stage knee arthrodesis was reliable in achieving limb salvage (95%) at the cost of a high initial complication and reoperation rate. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard for treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection after total hip replacement (THR). In the first stage, all components and associated cement if present are removed, an aggressive debridement is undertaken including a complete synovectomy, and an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is put in place. Patients are then treated with six weeks of parenteral antibiotics, followed by an ‘antibiotic free period’ to help ensure the infection has been eradicated. If the clinical evaluation and serum inflammatory markers suggest the infection has resolved, then the second stage can be completed, which involves removal of the cement spacer, repeat debridement, and placement of a new THR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:84–7

Two-stage reimplantation is currently the most widely accepted method of treatment for a periprosthetic hip infection. However, it remains controversial whether the treatment protocol may be equally effective in the eradication of resistant microorganisms. We compared the results of two-stage reimplantation performed for periprosthetic hip infection caused by resistant microorganisms with those performed for periprosthetic hip infection caused by non-resistant microorganisms. We reviewed a consecutive series of 32 patients (32 hips) who had a culture-proven deep infection at the site of hip arthroplasty and were treated by a two-stage reimplantation protocol. Based on the antibiotic sensitivities of the infecting microorganisms, the patients were divided into two groups. Resistant microorganism group consisted of 20 patients who had an infection with antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 11 and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis in 9). Non-resistant microorganism group consisted of 12 patients who had an infection with antibiotic-sensitive bacterial strains. The treatment was considered a failure if the patient had a persistent infection after the first-stage procedure or a recurrence of infection after reimplantation. The mean duration of follow-up after the index procedure was 45 months (24 to 123). Among the entire series of the 32 patients, the second-stage reimplantation was able to be performed in 29 patients (91%) and the remaining three went on to a permanent resection of the hip because of persistent infections. After the two-stage reimplantation, four patients had a recurrence of infection (relapse of infection with the same microorganism in three and reinfection with different resistant microorganism in one). Thus, overall treatment failure rate was 22% and all these failures occurred among patients with resistant microorganisms. Treatment failure rate of 35% in resistant microorganism group was significantly higher than that of 0% in the non-resistant microorganism group (p = 0.029). None of the variables evaluated in this study was found to be significantly associated with the treatment failure in the resistant microorganism group. Current two-stage reimplantation protocol showed a high rate of treatment failure in our patients who had periprosthetic hip infection caused by methicillin-resistant bacterial strains. Further study is needed to develop optimal treatment strategy for this difficult-to-treat condition

Two-stage revision is the gold standard for managing infected total hip and knee arthroplasties. The aim was to assess the effect of duration between stages on reinfection rate at one year. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on all studies investigating reinfection rate with documented interval between first and second stages. Total hip (THR) and total knee replacements (TKRs) were included but analysed separately. The effect size of studies was stratified according to sample size then with study quality. All papers up until November 2015 (including non-English language) were considered. From 3827 papers reviewed, 38 cohorts from 35 studies were included, comprising 23 THR and 15 TKR groups. Average study quality was 5.6/11 (range 3–8). Funnel plots calculated to assess for bias indicated significant asymmetry at lower sample sizes in both groups. In the TKR group, studies with 0–3 months between stages showed a significantly lower reinfection rate than 3–6 months (9.5% 21/222 vs 20.7% 28/135, p<0.01). A similar trend was seen in the THR group (6.1% vs 10.7%, p<0.05). No difference was observed for either group between 3–6 and 6–9 months. There is no consensus regarding the appropriate duration between surgeries in two-stage revisions for infection. Studies stratified by sample size and quality indicate an increased reinfection rate past three months. Published guidance is no substitute for clinical decision-making but the conclusions from this study are to recommend against routine delay of more than 3 months between first and second stage revisions for infected THR and TKR

Introduction: There are few published reports outlining the outcome of those patients who have undergone revision hip arthroplasty surgery for recurrent infection. From a consecutive series of 114 patients who had undergone a two-stage exchange without prolonged antibiotic therapy we report the outcome of those patients who continued to have persistent infection. Methods: Fourteen patients were identified, all with microbiologically proven recurrent deep infection. Seven patients have undertaken further attempts at cure by a two-stage exchange and where again a prolonged course of antibiotic therapy was not routinely used. Infection was eradicated in six out of the seven patients (84%). The mean follow-up of this group is 90 months (range 25–150 months). Results: From the initial series an overall cure rate of 93% was seen. The other patient has a pseudarthrosis. Seven patients elected not to undergo a further two-stage revision. Five patients have retained their arthroplasty with lifelong suppressive antibiotic therapy. One has a pseudarthrosis and one disarticulation has taken place for inadequate tissue cover. Discussion: This series would suggest that in patients willing to undertake further surgery in an attempt to eradicate infection they stand a good chance of a successful outcome

Purpose. Infection following total knee arthroplasty is a devastating complication, requiring considerable effort on the part of the surgeon to eradicate the infection and restore joint function. Two-stage revision is the standard of care in the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection, using a temporary antibiotic-impregnated spacer between procedures. However, controversy remains concerning the use of static versus dynamic spacers, as well as the spacer material. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty in patients treated with a metal-on-polyethylene articulating spacer, as compared to those treated with a static antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer at the same centre. Method. Twenty-seven knees in patients with a mean age of 65 years (range, 40 to 80 years) were treated with two-stage revision of an infected total knee arthroplasty using a metal-on-polyethylene dynamic prosthetic spacer fixed with antibiotic-impregnated cement. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using maximum active knee range of motion, as well as modified Knee Society knee scores and incidence of re-infection at a minimum one-year follow-up. The results were compared to those achieved at similar follow-up in 10 patients treated with a static cement spacer. Demographic profile as measured by age and gender, and pre-operative Knee Society scores and range of motion were similar between the two groups. Results. At a mean of twenty-five months following re-implantation (range, 12 to 50 months), the patients treated with dynamic spacers had significantly higher Knee Society scores (mean 93 points, range 77 to 100 points) as compared to the group treated with static spacers (mean 76 points, range 59 to 89 points; p=0.039). Additionally, mean range of motion at final follow-up was substantially higher in the patients treated with dynamic spacers (mean 102 degrees, range 60 to 120 degrees versus mean 92 degrees, range 40 to 120 degrees). There was one re-infection in the dynamic spacer group (3.7%), in a patient whos clinical course was previously complicated by subluxation of the dynamic spacer between procedures. Otherwise, no gross loosening or fractures of the dynamic spacers were noted. Conclusion. The results of this study suggest that the use of a cemented metal-on-polyethylene dynamic prosthetic spacer at the time of two-stage revision knee arthroplasty is similarly effective in eradicating peri-prosthetic infections when compared to the use of a cemented static spacer, while providing better clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Additionally, this spacer design provides a degree of mobility and knee function between procedures that is unachievable with a static construct, and appears to eliminate the potential complication of spacer fracture associated with pre-formed cement implants. The authors await further data to confirm these findings at longer-term follow-up

Aim. A two-stage exchange of an infected prosthetic joint (PJI) is considered the most effective surgical treatment of chronic PJIs, particularly in North America. However, reinfection rates are unacceptably high (10–20%). This could be the consequence of a persistent infection or a new infection introduced during the first or second stage of the exchange arthroplasty. We aimed to determine: i) the prevalence of positive cultures at reimplantation, ii) whether there is an association between positive cultures at reimplantation and reinfection during follow-up, and iii) if there is a microbiological correlation between primary infections, reimplantations and reinfections. Method. We retrospectively evaluated all two-stage exchange procedures performed at two academic centers between 2000 and 2015. Primary culture-negative PJIs and cases in whom no intraoperative cultures were obtained during reimplantation were excluded from the analysis. One or more positive intraoperative cultures during reimplantation were considered positive for infection. Reinfection was defined as the need for additional surgical intervention after reimplantation or the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy due to persistent clinical signs of infection. Results. A total of 424 cases were included in the final analysis with a mean follow-up of 48 months (SD 37). Eighty-eight cases (20.8%) had positive cultures during reimplantation (second stage) of which 68.1% (n=60) grew a different microorganism than during the first stage of the procedure. The percentage of positive cultures during reimplantation was higher for hips than for knees (26.5% vs 17.1%, p 0.02). For the total group, the reinfection rate during follow-up was 18.4% (78/424), which was 29.5% for the positive-culture group versus 15.5% for the culture-negative group at reimplantation (p=0.002). A positive culture during reimplantation was an independent risk factor for reinfection during follow-up in the multivariate analysis (OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.2 – 3.8), p 0.007). Reinfection was caused by a different microorganism than the primary infection (first stage) in 64.1% of cases (50/78). Conclusions. There is a very high rate of positive cultures at reimplantation, which are mostly attributed to a different microorganism than the primary infection and is associated with a worse outcome. These results stress the importance of developing treatment strategies for this particular population

The timing of performing knee arthroplasties in bilateral osteoarthritic knees remains controversial. Our aim was to compare one-stage with two-stage bilateral knee arthroplasties (TKA). Between November 2004 and April 2008, 128 patients (72 female and 56 male) underwent one-stage bilateral TKAs. Another group of 115 patients that underwent two-stage procedures during the same period formed the control group. All patients received the same type of anaesthesia. Study parameters included age, weight, medical co-morbidities, length of hospital stay, blood loss, post-operative complications and functional outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Co-morbidities and functional outcome based on the Knee Society Score were similar in both groups. In the one-stage group the length of hospital stay and blood losses were higher than the two-stage group; however less than double compared to the two-stage group. The early post-operative complications were higher but not statistically significant in the one-stage group. Despite the fact that the early post-operative complications are slightly higher in the one-stage group, this particular method is an effective way of dealing with bilaterally osteoarthritic knees. It offers excellent functional outcome at a reduced cost

Purpose: Approximately, 10% of two-stage TKA revisions for deep sepsis become re-infected. The purpose of this study was to determine the success in terms of sepsis eradication and factors associated with failure of repeat two-stage revision TKA. Method: Between 1991 and 2006, 129 two-stage revision TKRs for deep sepsis were performed. Ten cases which became re-infected were identified. These unfortunate patients, representing 8% of all the two-stage TKA revisions performed during this time period, are the focus of this study. Their progress and treatment interventions were followed for the purposes of this study. Results: Ten patients were identified with a two-stage revision TKA which became re-infected. Mean patient age was 72 with 40 % being female. Following recurrent sepsis all patients went on to require more than one further two-stage revision (mean 3.67 further revision surgeries). Infection was only successfully eradicated in 28.7% of cases, the remaining require chronic suppressive therapy or have ongoing active infection. Two patients went on to have an arthrodesis (both remain on suppressive anti-biotics) and one patient had trans-femoral amputation. Staph Aureus and Coagulase neg Staph accounted for 80% of primary infective organisms with only one primary infection with methicillin resistant staph aureus (MRSA). Cultures at subsequent revisions were the same organism in 67% cases. Additional organism cultured included Pseudomonas and Propionibacterium. These patients had an increased incidence of multiple medical co-morbidities including Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Conclusion: Patients with recurrent sepsis after a two-stage revision for infection in TKR all required multiple further surgeries. Eradication of infection was only achieved in 28.7% cases. Risk factors for recurrent sepsis include Rheumatoid Arthritis and Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus

We report the outcome at ten to 15 years of two-stage revision for hip infection in 99 patients using the Prostalac articulated hip spacer system. All the patients were contacted to determine their current functional and infection status using the Oxford-12, Short form-12, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index questionnaires. A total of 11 of the 99 patients had a further infection, of whom seven responded to repeat surgery with no further sequelae. The mean interval between the stages was five months (1 to 36). We were able to review 48 living patients, with a mean age of 72 years (46 to 86), 34 (71%) of whom provided health-related quality-of-life outcome scores. The mean follow-up was 12 years (10 to 15). The long-term success rate was 89% and with additional surgery this rose to 96%. The mean global Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index score was 80.6 (. sd. 18.3). The mean Oxford-12 score was 74.0 (. sd. 22.3), and the mean Short form-12 score was 53.1 (. sd. 9.4) (mental) and 33.5 (. sd. 13.5) (physical). The mean satisfaction score was 90.5 (. sd. 15.3). Two-stage revision for hip infection using a Prostalac interim spacer offers a predictable and lasting solution for patients with this difficult problem

Infection remains among the first reasons for failure of joint prosthesis. Currently, the golden standard for treating prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is two-stage revision. However, two-stage procedures have been reported to be associated with higher costs and possible higher morbidity and mortality, compared to one-stage. Furthermore, recent studies showed the ability of a fast-resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel coating to reduce surgical site infections after joint replacement, by preventing bacterial colonization of implants. Aim of this study was then to compare the infection recurrence rate after a one-stage, cemenless exchange, performed with an antibacterial coated implant versus a standardized two-stage revision procedure. In this two-center prospective study, 22 patients, candidate to revision surgery for PJI, were enrolled to undergo a one-stage revision surgery with cementless implants, coated intra-operatively with a fast-resorbable, antibiotic-loaded hyaluronan and poly-D,L-lactide based hydrogel coating (“Defensive Antibacterial Coating”, DAC, Novagenit, Italy). DAC was reconstructed according to manufacturer indications and loaded with Vancomycin or Vancomycin + Meropenem, according to cultural examinations, and directly spread onto the implant before insertion. This prospective cohort was compared with a retrospective series of 22 consecutive patients, matched for age, sex, host type, site of surgery, that underwent a two stage procedure, using a preformed, antibiotic-loaded spacer (Tecres, Italy) and a cementless implant. The second surgery, for definitive implant placing, was performed only after CRP normalization and no clinical sign of infection. Clinical, laboratory and radiographic evaluation were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter. Infection recurrence was defined by the presence of a sinus tract communicating with the joint, or at least two among the following criteria: clinical signs of infections; elevated CRP and ESR; elevated synovial fluid WBC count; elevated synovial fluid leukocyte esterase; a positive cultural examination from synovial fluid; radiographic signs of stem loosening. The two groups did not differ significantly for age, sex, host type and site of surgery (18 knees and 4 hips, respectively). The DAC hydrogel was loaded intra-operatively, according to cultural examination, with vancomycin (14 patients) or vancomycin and meropenem (8 cases). At a mean follow-up of 20.2 ± 6.3 months, 2 patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to 3 patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. No adverse events associated with the use of DAC or radiographic loosening of the stem were observed at the latest follow-up months. This is the first report on one-stage cementless revision surgery for PJI, performed with a fast-resorbable antibacterial hydrogel coating. Our data, although in a limited series of patients and at a relatively short follow-up, show similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with cementless, coated implants, compared to two-stage revision. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections

Infection has been one of the serious complications after total hip arthroplasty. It forces physical and mental stress to the patients. We have routinely applied two-stage revision for infected replaced hip joint. Cement spacer mold technique has been used for the purpose since 2002. The purpose of this study is to analysis of peri-operative status and functional outcome of the patients underwent the two-stage revision procedure. Nine joints of the eight patients were included in the study. Seven patients were female and one was male and its average age was 64 years (55–81 years). After removal of implant, antibiotic-loaded cement spacer prosthesis which was made by the cement spacer mold (Biomet, Warsaw, USA), was inserted. The leg length, range of motion of the hip, walking ability and complications between first and second-stage operation were analyzed. The change of leg length after first stage operation compared with prior operation was ranged from −18 mm to +13 mm with an average of 20 mm. Average range of hip flexion was 70°(40–90°). Patients could walk with crutches after first-stage operation. Complications after first stage operation were found in two cases; fracture of femoral cement spacer prosthesis and dislocation of the femoral spacer. There was no case of recurrence of infection. Clinical assessment of two-stage revision for infected replaced hip joint with cement spacer mold showed favorable functional outcome and a few complications after first-stage operation. It also showed satisfactory short-term outcome after second-stage operation

Background. Two-stage revision is considered the gold standard for treatment of knee prosthetic joint infections. Current guidelines for selecting the most appropriate procedure to eradicate knee prosthetic joint infections are based upon the duration of symptoms, the condition of the implant and soft tissue evaluated during surgery and the infecting organism. A more robust tool to identify candidates for two-stage revision and who are at high risk for treatment failure might improve preoperative risk assessment and increase a surgeon's index of suspicion, resulting in closer monitoring, optimization of risk factors for failure and more aggressive management of those patients who are predicted to fail. Methods. Charts from 3,809 revision total joint arthroplasties were reviewed. Demographic data, clinical data and disease follow-up on 314 patients with infected total knee arthroplasty treated with two-stage revision were collected. Univariate analyses were performed to determine which variables were independently associated with failure of the procedure to eradicate the prosthetic joint infections. Cox regression was used to construct a model predicting the probability of treatment failure and the results were used to generate a nomogram which was internally validated using bootstrapping. Results. 209 (66.6%) cases experienced reinfection at an average of 429 days (range, 9 to 3,886) following the two-stage revision. Univariate analysis identified multiple variables independently associated with reinfection including: a longer duration of symptoms (p<0.001), a longer time from the index total knee arthroplasty (p=0.003), a higher number of previous surgeries in the same joint (p<0.001), an elevated C-reactive protein (p=0.005), an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p=0.006), a low hemoglobin (p=0.001), a previous infection in the same joint (p<0.001), diabetes (p<0.001), and heart disease (p=0.006). Among 1,000 bootstrap samples, the bias corrected receiver operating characteristic for the nomogram was 0.77. Conclusions. Preoperative knowledge of the probability that a treatment strategy will eradicate a patient's prosthetic joint infection may improve risk assessment and allow adequate time for consideration of alternative therapies

We report a retrospective study of the major complications following one-stage and two-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Between 1999 and 2008, 911 patients underwent 1150 UKRs through a minimally- invasive approach in our unit. Of these, 159 patients (318 UKRs) had one-stage bilateral UKR and 80 patients (160 UKRs) had two-stage bilateral UKRs. The remainder were unilateral UKRs. The bilateral UKR groups were comparable in age and ASA grade, but more females were in the two-staged group (p=0.019). Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in all cases. Major complications were recorded as death, pulmonary embolus, proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and adverse cardiac events within 30 days of surgery. No statistical differences between the groups were found regarding operating surgeon, tourniquet time or minor complications (excepting distal DVT). Anaesthetic times were greater for the two-stage group (p= 0.0001). Major complications were significantly more common with one-stage bilateral UKR (13 patients, 8.2%) compared to two-stage bilateral UKR (no patients) (p=0.005). Distal DVT was more frequent in the two-stage group (p=0.036). This series reports significantly higher risks of major complications are associated with one-stage bilateral UKR when compared to two-stage bilateral UKR. There is no evidence that the addition of chemical thrombo-prophylaxis would change this risk. We advocate caution before undertaking a one-stage bilateral UKR

We report a series of 17 exchange arthroplasties for infected knee prostheses, ten one-stage and seven two-stage procedures. The method proved successful in controlling infection and restoring function. In two-stage exchanges the interval between the stages was managed by using a prosthesis as a spacer, and acrylic cement beads containing the appropriate antibiotic to provide high local concentrations. Three one-stage procedures had recurrence of infection, but were successfully treated by further exchange operations. All patients had satisfactory function and there have been no serious complications. We recommend this modified two-stage technique for the management of infected knee arthroplasties

The aim of this study was to compare the results of resection arthroplasty with two-stage re-implantation procedure performed for peri-prosthetic infection of the hip. Patients who have had a resection arthroplasty can expect to have less pain, but their functional recovery is inferior to that which can be obtained after a two-stage re-implantation. Resection arthroplasty is usually unacceptable as a definitive solution for relatively young and active patients. Possible options for the operative treatment of a periprosthetic infection include debridement with retention of the prosthesis, immediate one-stage exchange arthroplasty, and excision arthroplasty – either as a definitive procedure or as the first of a two-stage reconstructive procedure. The choice of a particular treatment is influenced by a number of factors. At the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in Hradec Králové we performed resection arthoplasty of the hip in 67 patients between 1984 and 1998. Mean age was 67 years (range 44–91). We were able to follow-up 33 of these patients in 1999. At follow-up, replacement of the total hip prosthesis in two stages had been carried out in 10 of the 33 patients. In 23 patients (11 male, 12 female) the resection arthroplasty had been present for an average of five years. In the remaining ten patients (3 male, 7 female) a total hip reimplantation had been performed after an average of 17 months (range 3 to 63). Mean follow-up after reimplantation was four years. The Harris hip score was calculated for the individual patients during follow-up. The Harris hip score was 66 in the re-implantation group compared to 57.5 in the patients with resection arthroplasty. Personal satisfaction and hip function were better after the two-stage re-implantation procedure

The aim of this study is to compare the results of resection arthroplasty with two-stage re-implantation procedure performed for peri-prosthetic infection of the hip. Patients who have had a resection arthroplasty can expect to have less pain, but their functional recovery is inferior to that which can be obtained after a two-stage re-implantation. Resection arthroplasty is usually unacceptable as a definitive solution for relatively young and active patients. Possible options for the operative treatment of a periprosthetic infection include debridement with retention of the prosthesis, immediate one-stage exchange arthroplasty, and excision arthroplasty – either as a definitive procedure or as the first of a two-stage reconstructive procedure. The choice of a particular treatment is influenced by a number of factors. At the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in Hradec Králové we performed resection arthoplasty of the hip in 67 patients between 1984 and 1998. Mean age was 67 years (range 44–91). We were able to follow-up 33 of these patients in 1999. At follow-up, replacement of the total hip prosthesis in two stages had been carried out in 10 of the 33 patients. In 23 patients (11male, 12 female) the resection arthroplasty had been present for an average of five years. In the remaining ten patients (3 male, 7 female) a total hip reimplantation had been performed after an average of 17 months (range 3 to 63). Mean follow-up after reimplantation was four years. The Harris hip score was calculated for the individual patients during follow-up. The Harris hip score was 66 in the re-implantation group compared to 57.5 in the patients with resection arthroplasty. Personal satisfaction and hip function were better after the two-stage re-implantation procedure

Antibiotic impregnated articulating spacers are used in two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty to deliver local antibiotic therapy while preserving function. We have observed infection control in greater than 95% of cases with functional outcomes approaching those seen in revision for aseptic loosening. Higher failure has been observed with methicillin resistant organisms.

Aim. Very limited information is available regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient reported hip function following treatment for chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection (PJI). Several reviews have not found any clear differences in clinical outcome parameters comparing the most commonly applied treatment strategies for chronic hip PJI. Studies describing patients HRQOL of one-stage and two-stage revision could provide important information regarding patient counselling. The purpose of this study was to investigate HRQOL and patient reported hip function after one-stage revision and two-stage revision in chronic hip PJI. Method. The one-stage group was identified in a prospective clinical study on one-stage revision in chronic hip PJI. Fifty-one patients were followed for two years on an outpatient basis and completed three questionnaires; EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. The two-stage group was identified retrospectively in the National Patient Register and 45 patients completed EQ-5D and OHS. The observed results were compared to normative population data for SF-36 and EQ-5D. Results. In the one-stage group the improvement in HRQOL appeared in the first 6 months after surgery, reached a plateau, and decreased slightly again. The largest improvements at 2 years were OHS with an effect size (ES): 1.3 and SF-36's physical role limitation and bodily pain with ES: 1.1. The one-stage group reached the matched population norm on all parameters at 12 months, but two scores declined from 12 to 24 months: physical functioning (66 to 50 (out of 100, population norm 71) and physical role limitation (58 to 40, population norm 63). Neither the one-stage nor the two-stage group reached the EQ-5D population norm. When comparing the two groups, the mean scores (CI 95%) for one-stage revision were significantly higher compared to the two-stage revision group on EQ-5D. VAS. 12.9 (2.4;23.3 p=0.02) and OHS 5.9 (0.5;11.2 p=0.03), but not on EQ-5D. index. 0.065 (−0.04;0.17 p= 0.22). Conclusions. Two years after receiving one-stage revision the patients experienced a significant increase in HRQOL and reported hip function, and matched the population norm on most parameters. The decrease in physical scores at 24 months could be attributed to co-morbidities. Neither group reached the EQ-5D population norm. Patients receiving one-stage revision obtained higher HRQOL and hip function compared to two-stage revision. However, a direct comparison of the two groups cannot be performed due to difference in study design

It is strongly recommended that tissue and synovial fluid culture samples be obtained during reimplantation performed as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and the influence of positive cultures on subsequent outcome are unknown. This aim of this study was to determine the incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and to investigate the association between positive cultures at reimplantation and the subsequent outcome. A retrospective review was conducted on 267 patients that met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI that completed both stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasty (Table 1). Intraoperative culture results from tissue and/or synovial fluid were obtained. Cultures were positive in 33 cases (12.4%) undergoing reimplantation surgery (Figure 1). Treatment failure was assessed based on the Delphi consensus definition. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure of two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Treatment failure was 45.5% for those with a positive intraoperative culture and 20.9% in those with negative cultures at the time of reimplantation. When controlling for organism virulence, comorbidities, and other confounding factors, treatment failure was higher (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–4.5) and occurred at an earlier time point (hazard ratio: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3–4.5) in patients with a positive reimplantation culture. The treatment failure rate was not different between cases with two or more positive cultures (36.4%) and one positive culture (42.8%). Positive intraoperative cultures during reimplantation, regardless of the number of positive samples were independently associated with two times the risk of subsequent infection and earlier treatment failure. Surgeons should be aware that a positive culture at the time of reimplantation independently increases the risk of subsequent failure and needs to be taken seriously. Given the significance of these findings, future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal management of positive cultures during reimplantation surgery

Infection remains as one of the major challenges of total joint surgery. One-stage irrigation, debridement and reimplantation or two-stage revision surgery with a temporary implantation of antibiotic eluting bone cement spacer followed by reimplantation are two methods often used to treat infected patients with mixed outcomes. Like bone cement, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) can also be used as a carrier for antibiotics. Recently, we demonstrated that vancomycin and rifampin can be successfully delivered from UHMWPE implants at therapeutic levels to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in a lupine animal model. There are regulatory challenges in translating these types of combination devices in to clinical use. One approach is to follow a stepwise strategy, with the first step of seeking clearance for a temporary UHMWPE spacer containing gentamicin sulfate. In this study, we explored the effect of gentamicin sulfate (GS) content in UHMWPE on GS elution rate and antimicrobial activity against methicillin-sensitive S. aureus(MSSA). We also assessed the effect of spacer fabrication on the activity of gentamicin sulfate. We prepared and consolidated UHMWPE/GS blends in varying concentrations. After consolidation, we fabricated test samples with surface area (350mm2) to volume (300mm3) ratio of 1.2 for elution in 1.5ml phosphate buffered saline at body temperature for up to six months and quantified eluted GS content using liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry (LCMS). We assessed the antibacterial activity of the obtained samples in vitro against various concentrations of MSSA (103–106 CFU/ml). Furthermore, we quantified the probability of bacterial colonization of UHMWPE impregnated with GS compared to GS containing bone cement. We assessed any detectable changes in activity of eluted GS caused by spacer fabrication by screening m/z peaks of GS isomers in mass spectra obtained from LC-MS. Gentamicin sulfate activity was not compromised by the elevated temperature and pressure used during spacer fabrication. Elution rate of GS increased with increasing GS content in the blends studied. At comparable elution rates, the GS-loaded UHMWPE was either equivalent or better in terms of antibacterial and anticolonization properties when compared with gentamicin containing bone cement. GS-impregnated UHMWPE is a promising material for temporary spacers

To report mid-term results of PJI treated with uncemented stems. : 80 hips of PJI after THA were treated with uncemented stems from 01/1993 to 12/2012 and followed prospectively. Selection occurred for one- (n=27) or two-stage (n=53) exchange according to the Liestal algorithm. Surgical approaches were transfemoral (n=58), transgluteal (n=9) or transtrochanteric (n=13). A monoblock (Wagner SL, n=58) or modular (Revitan, n=22) revision stem was implanted. On the acetabular side 44 Müller rings, 33 Burch-Schneider cages (combined with a cemented PE-cup) and 3 press-fit cups were used. Kaplan-Meier survival was calculated for endpoints (a) persistence of infection, (b) septic/aseptic stem loosening. Radiographs were analysed for (a) subsidence, (b) distal stem integration, (c) changes in cortical thickness, (d) proximal femur restoration, (e) radiolucency around stem/cup. Mean FU was 5.2 (2–15) years. PJI was eradicated in 77 of 80 hips (96%). 3 patients (all two-stage) had a treatment failure. 2 were treated successfully with an additional two-stage exchange. In the 3rd patient we were not able to control infection and exarticulation was performed. Furthermore, one stem was revised for aseptic loosening (5 years), 1 for a broken Wagner stem (7 years) and 1 for subsidence (8 months). Stem survival after 5 years was 93% (SD ±2.5 years). 2 cups were revised for aseptic loosening and 1 for recurrent dislocations. Subsidence ≥5mm was found in 6 hips and occurred always within 3 months after surgery independent of stem type (p=0.947) and approach (p=0.691). Proximal femoral remodelling after transfemoral approach was excellent or good in 71% (32 excellent, 9 good) with no difference between one-/two-stage exchanges (p=0.288). Initial distal stem integration was 65mm medial and 66mm lateral and increased to 8mm medial (p=0.716) and 10mm lateral (p<0.001). Cortical thickness was unchanged over the entire FU period (p=0.493). Radiolucencies were seen around 26 stems, only the stem revised after 5years was rated loose. Eradication of PJI was high using our established protocol even with uncemented revision stems. Mid-term survival was independent from one-/two-stage revision and comparable to results for aseptic loosening revision

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected joint prosthesis. The choice of this option relies on the following considerations:. higher antibiotic concentrations may be used in the spacers, compared to the cement used for prosthetic fixation in a single-stage procedure, since high dose antibiotic-loaded cement may be too fragile for long term prosthesis fixation (Bucholz, 1986);. the frequent occurrence of bone loss and the smooth cortical bone surface, encountered at revision may prevent effective cementing;. two-stage revision allows the use of uncemented modular stems, useful for intra-operatively balancing legs’ length, offset and muscular tension;. distal fixation allows to overcome proximal frequent bone loss;. bone grafts, eventually plus growth factors, may be safely added;. a second debridment may enhance the possibility of eradicating the infection;. there is a large and growing international literature evidence in support to this option. Two-stage reimplantation using an articulated interval spacer of antibiotic-impregnated bone-cement has been previously investigated and proved as an effective Method:. to adequately fill the void created by the implant removal,. to prevent limb shortening and soft-tissue contracture,. to allow a better function,. to provide local antibiotic therapy,. to eradicate infection,. to facilitate reimplantation. However a considerable variation in the form and function of interval spacers exists. A spacer may in fact be commercially made, or it may be custom-made in the operating room. It may be made entirely of polymethylmethacrylate cement, or it may be a cement-coated metal composite. Favorable results have been reported with each of these types of spacers. Preformed antibiotic-loaded spacers (InterSpace® Hip and InterSpace® Knee, Tecres SpA, Verona, Italy – Hexactech Inc. Gainesville, Florida) offer:. known mechanical resistance;. predictable antibiotic release;. reduced surgical time;. joint function preservation and partial weight bearing;. standardized technique. In particular, as to concern the hip, their most peculiar feature is their availability in short and long stem shapes, that allows to overcome frequent proximal femoral bone defects. Acceptable costs (< 5% of the total costs for a two-stage procedure)

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected joint prosthesis. The choice of this option relies on the following considerations:. higher antibiotic concentrations may be used in the spacers, compared to the cement used for prosthetic fixation in a single-stage procedure, since high dose antibiotic-loaded cement may be too fragile for long term prosthesis fixation (Bucholz, 1986);. the frequent occurrence of bone loss and the smooth cortical bone surface, encountered at revision may prevent effective cementing;. two-stage revision allows the use of uncemented modular stems, useful for intra-operatively balancing legs’ length, offset and muscular tension;. distal fixation allows to overcome proximal frequent bone loss;. bone grafts, eventually plus growth factors, may be safely added;. a second debridment may enhance the possibility of eradicating the infection;. there is a large and growing international literature evidence in support to this option. Two-stage reimplantation using an articulated interval spacer of antibiotic-impregnated bone-cement has been previously investigated and proved as an effective Method:. to adequately fill the void created by the implant removal,. to prevent limb shortening and soft-tissue contracture,. to allow a better function,. to provide local antibiotic therapy,. to eradicate infection,. to facilitate reimplantation. However a considerable variation in the form and function of interval spacers exists. A spacer may in fact be commercially made, or it may be custom-made in the operating room. It may be made entirely of polymethylmethacrylate cement, or it may be a cement-coated metal composite. Favorable results have been reported with each of these types of spacers. Preformed antibiotic-loaded spacers (InterSpace® Hip and InterSpace® Knee, Tecres SpA, Verona, Italy – Hexactech Inc. Gainesville, Florida) offer:. known mechanical resistance;. predictable antibiotic release;. reduced surgical time;. joint function preservation and partial weight bearing;. standardized technique. In particular, as to concern the hip, their most peculiar feature is their availability in short and long stem shapes, that allows to overcome frequent proximal femoral bone defects. Acceptable costs (< 5% of the total costs for a two-stage procedure)

When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83). The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism. We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system

The removal of all prosthetic material and a two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection, with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved. The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to 192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining 14 patients. We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral cement mantle can be safely left in situ, without compromising the treatment of infection. Advantages of this technique include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock and a technically more straightforward second-stage procedure