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. 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

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

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: We describe a novel, innovative and inexpensive method of producing a reinforced articulating cement spacer using a commercially available hip cement mould.

Methods: After adequate debridement and removal of original implants during the first of a two-stage revision procedure, an articulating cement spacer is created using a conventional mould and is reinforcing using a central stainless steel rod extending from the head to the tip using a novel technique that will be described in detail.

Results: We currently have a cohort of six consecutive patients in whom this novel cement spacer has been used. All patients were able to at least partially weight bear and none of the spacers fractured. Five have been explanted at second stage surgery after a minimum of 8 weeks in situ. One patient has been unable to undergo a second stage due to medical co morbidities and continues to mobilise with walking aids on the spacer 1-year post implantation.

Discussion: The articulating cement spacer described is produced using a technique that is simple, reproducible and allows a reinforced spacer to be created inexpensively without the need for special equipment. The spacer described provides a number of advantages over previously described or currently available commercial cement spacers. As it is reinforced it provides increased strength and allows partial weight bearing without risk of spacer fracture, a recognised complication of unreinforced spacers. As it uses a mould the surface remains smooth allowing easier insertion and minimising further bone loss with articulation. As it is fabricated intra-operatively, rather than being premanufactured, antibiotics can be added to the cement used to make the spacer according to known organism sensitivities.

Conclusion: We describe the first ever smooth, articulating, moulded cement spacer that can be inexpensively fabricated intra-operatively without the requirement for special equipment.

Infected hip prosthesis, a devastating complication of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to a serious condition. We report here the treatment outcome of our method of two-stage revision THA for infected hip arthroplasty using a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer for the period between resection and reimplantation.

Between 1996 and 2000, we performed two-stage revision THA using a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer on eight hips in eight patients with infected hip arthroplasty including hemiarthroplasty, with the infection presenting itself between four days and 19.4 years after last operation. There were four females and four males, with a mean age of 67 years (58 to 72). The mean period of follow-up was 2.5 years (0.3 to 4.3). Cementless THA was implanted as the second srage procedure. Bone defects were restored with frozen allografts. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the hip score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA hip score).

The duration of follow-up was 33.9 months (range, 8 to 55 months). The mean JOA hip score at follow-up improved from 32.6 (19 to 74) to 77.1 (59 to 96). The mean interval period was 10.3 weeks (range, 6 to 19 weeks). Seven patients with infected hip arthroplasty successfully received implantation by two-stage cement-less revision THA.

One patient with MRSA infection had a recurrence after four months of revision of THA. However, the two-stage procedure using a vancomicin-impregnated bone cement spacer and beads implantation successfully treated this patient 14 months after the first revision of THA. No recurrence of infection was found at 42 months of follow-up.

These results suggest that two-stage revision THA using a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer is a useful technique for infected hip arthroplasty.

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. 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

The aim of revision hip arthroplasty for infection is to eradicate infection and restore function. There is, in current literature, little evidence to suggest an optimal time interval between first (excision) and second (reconstruction) stage procedures in revision hip arthroplasty. Our aim was to assess the difference in outcome, in terms of patient pain, function and satisfaction, in relation to the time interval between surgeries. A prospective analysis was made of 22 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision total hip replacement between 1992 and 2001. There were 12 male and 10 female patients. The mean age at the time of revision surgery was 63.5 years (range 35–83 years). The indication for surgery was infection in all cases. Patients were subdivided into two groups according to the time interval between first and second stages : Group 1 – time interval 6 months or less; Group 2 – time interval greater than 1 year. Outcome was assessed at 1 year post-operatively using change in pain and function scores and patient satisfaction scores. Pre-operative pain and function scores were similar in the two Groups. Both Groups reported a similar improvement in pain at 1 year post-operatively. The patients in Group 1 also showed an improvement in function score, however, the patients in Group 2 showed no improvement in function. All patients felt the operation to be worthwhile as reflected in the patient satisfaction scores. The results suggest that good improvements in pain can be achieved after short and longer time intervals. A longer time interval may well be associated with a poorer outcome in terms of restoring function

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).