The management of periprosthetic joint infection is challenging and the duration of systemic antibiotic therapy whether it be during the interval phase or after reimplantation of a new prosthesis is controversial. We report our experience of managing chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip by the two stage exchange procedure. Patients who were scheduled to undergo a two stage revision for chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip were identified from our prospective database. Of 425 patients with microbiologically proven periprosthetic infection, 369 (87%) underwent a two stage procedure, leaving 56 patients who did not proceed to reimplantation. 41 of these were clinically infection free but for personal or medical reasons did not proceed. The remaining 15 had persistent infection. The mean age at the time of the first stage was 68 years (26 – 92 yrs). 256 (61%) patients were alive for review. The mean time between stages was 6.3 months with a mean follow up after the second stage was 65 months (range 5 to 276 months). The success rate of a single 1. st. stage debridement, confirmed by negative cultures at the time of second stage reimplantation was 94%. 19 patients underwent a repeat 1. st. stage debridement and were classed as failures of the 1. st. stage. At the time of final review, 340 (92%) patients were deemed infection free out of those who had completed a 2 stage exchange. The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment after both the 1. st. and 2. nd. stages was divided into <48 hrs and >48 hours. There was no significant difference in the success of the 1. st. stage procedure in patients who received < 48 hours (48% of the patients) as opposed to > 48 hours (p = 0.98, Chi Squared Test, Relative Risk 1.009). Similarly there was no difference in the overall success of the two stage procedure irrespective of the duration of antibiotic therapy with 76% of patients receiving <48hrs of antibiotics after the second stage. Aggressive surgical debridement together with targeted local and short term systemic antibiotic therapy should be the mainstay of treatment in two stage revision surgery

Traditional mechanical debridement can only remove visibly infected tissue and is unable to completely clear all the biofilm that hides within muscle crevices and nerves. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using noncontact low frequency ultrasonic debridement in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). A prospective study of consecutive patients requiring single-stage revision for chronic PJI was performed since August 2021. After mechanical debridement, an 8‑mm handheld non‑contact low‑frequency ultrasound probe was used for ultrasonic debridement at a frequency of (25±5) kHz and power of 90% for 5 minutes. Each ultrasound lasted 10 seconds with 3‑seconds intervals. The probe was repeatedly sonicated among all soft tissue and bsingle interface. The distal femoral canal and the posterior capsule of the knee were fully sonicated with a special right‑angle probe. Chemical debridement was then performed to irrigation the whole operative area. Recurrence of infection, culture results and number of colonies 24 hours after ultrasonic debridement were recorded. A total of 45 patients (25 hips and 20 knees) were included and 43 of them (95.6%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 29 months (24 to 33). There were no intraoperative complications related to ultrasonic debridement (neurovascular and muscle injury, poor wound healing and fat liquefaction). The culture‑positive rate of wound liquid before ultrasonic debridement was 40.0% (18/45), which significantly increased to 75.6% (34/45) after ultrasonic debridement (P=0.001). The median number of colonies 24 hours after ultrasonic debridement was 2372 CFU/ml (310 to 4340 CFU/ml), which was significantly higher than that before debridement (307 CFU/ml; 10 to 980 CFU/ml) (P=0.000). Single-stage revision with non‑contact low‑frequency ultrasonic debridement can fully expose bacteria within biofilm, increase the efficacy of chemical debridement and lead to a favorable short‑term outcome without related complications

Introduction. Two-stage revision surgery remains the gold standard as treatment for periprosthetic hip infections. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of infection eradication after two-stage revision hip arthroplasty in patients treated with intraoperatively surgeon-molded articulating spacers as well as to foreshadow the future economical impact of these articulating antibiotic spacers to those commercially available. Methods. Thirty-five patients who underwent two-stage revision hip arthroplasty due to chronic periprosthetic infection between 2003–2014 were followed clinically and radiographically an average of 4.9 years postoperatively [2.2–9.2]. 17 male and 18 female patients with a mean age of 62 [34–82] had articulating spacers, made in the operating room, inserted at the first stage. [The overall expense of the custom-made antibiotic spacers and the commercially available spacers was calculated and compared using a student t test.]. Results. Thirty-one patients (91%) had no clinical or radiographic signs of infection at the time of most recent follow-up. There were no periprosthetic femur fractures and two (6.0%) had a dislocation of hip spacer prior to the second stage surgery. After reimplantation, three patients (9.0%) suffered dislocations of the prosthetic hip, with one of those patients undergoing a second dislocation of the previously reduced hip. [The antibiotic articulating hip spacer manufactured intraoperatively cost $2,712 as compared to commercially available injectable molds $4,619 (p<0.05) and prefabricated spacers $3,820 (p<0.05).]. Conclusions. Patients treated using intraoperatively molded articulating spacers had similar infection eradication rates and outcomes compared to previously reported commercially available articulating spacers1. In the era of cost containment and surgical bundles, surgeon-made articulating spacers should be considered in the first stage of periprosthetic infections. The adjustment in treatment could equate to a national savings of over $12 million annually

The aim of this study was to assess the role of synovial C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic hip infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid from 89 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and measured synovial CRP, serum CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and synovial percentages of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN). Patients were classified as septic or aseptic by means of clinical, microbiological, serum and synovial fluid findings. The high viscosity of the synovial fluid precluded the analyses in nine patients permitting the results in 80 patients to be studied. There was a significant difference in synovial CRP levels between the septic (n = 21) and the aseptic (n = 59) cohort. According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, a synovial CRP threshold of 2.5 mg/l had a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 93.3%. The area under the curve was 0.96. Compared with serum CRP and ESR, synovial CRP showed a high diagnostic value. According to these preliminary results, synovial CRP may be a useful parameter in diagnosing chronic periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:173–6

Aims

Large acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides including cost, availability, and operative processing. Bone graft substitutes (BGS) are an attractive alternative if they can demonstrate positive remodelling. One potential product is a biphasic injectable mixture (Cerament) that combines a fast-resorbing material (calcium sulphate) with the highly osteoconductive material hydroxyapatite. This study reviews the application of this biomaterial in large acetabular defects.

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.