Historical perspective: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular exchange has historically been the recommended treatment for acute post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and acute hematogenous PJI. The theory supporting this practice was that because the bacterial glycocalyx had not yet formed by these early time points, by simply debriding the intra-articular bacterial load and exchanging the modular parts, one could potentially eradicate the infection, retain the prior components, and minimise morbidity to the patient. More recently, literature is coming out suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case. The vast majority of published research on the outcomes following I&D for treatment of PJI has focused on either cohorts of total knee arthroplasty patients or combined cohorts of total hip and knee patients. For this reason, it is difficult to tease out the differential success rate of periprosthetic hip vs. knee infections. Sherrell et al. performed a systematic review of the existing literature and created a table detailing the failure rates for various published articles on I&D for periprosthetic TKA infection. Since it is the glycocalyx that has been thought to be the reason for treatment failure of many cases of PJI treated with I&D, many authors have implicated staphylococcal species as a predictor of a negative outcome with failure rates ranging from 30–35%. Methicillin resistant organisms have been shown to be particularly difficult to eradicate with an isolated I&D, with a 72–84% failure rate at 2 year follow-up. Interestingly, a recent study by Odum et al. suggests that neither the infecting microbe, nor the antibiotic resistance profile of the organism, as has been classically thought, actually predicts success of I&D. Previous reports have indicated that the ability of I&D to control infection is related to the duration of symptoms and its timing relative to the index surgery. However, more recent literature is coming out to support the contrary. Koyonos et al. reviewed the outcomes of a series of 138 cases of PJI treated with I&D based on acuity of infection and concluded that an I&D has a limited role in controlling PJI regardless of acuity. Intuitively, the physical health of the host/patient should influence the success of I&D for treatment of PJI. Several authors have shown that an immunocompromised state is a predictor of treatment failure. Furthermore, Azzam et al. reported that patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, a proxy of severity of medical comorbidities, had a significantly higher failure rate. Although potentially appealing due to relative ease of execution and minimal surgical morbidity, the ability to successfully eradicate infection with an arthroscopic procedure may be compromised. Given the inability to perform a radical surgical debridement, nor exchange modular components, arthroscopic debridement should be used with extreme reservation in any case of PJI, regardless of the host, nature of the infecting organism, or acuity of infection. I&D as a conservative, less morbid alternative to two-stage exchange - There is a growing body of literature to suggest that an I&D with modular component exchange may not be the benign, less morbid alternative to the ‘gold standard’ two-stage exchange arthroplasty. In fact, Fehring et al. has reported that the success of a two-stage antibiotic spacer exchange arthroplasty may be compromised by an initial I&D. They found that patients who were initially treated with an I&D only had a 66% chance of eradicating infection following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, in contrast to historical reports of 80–90% success

Infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a devastating complication and is one of the main causes for revision surgery. This complication may be treated by irrigation and debridement with head and polyethylene exchange (IDHPE) or a two-stage revision (2SR). Previous studies have reported on the eradication success rates but few have reported patient outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to report patient outcome scores for both IDHPE and 2SR and compare these to a non-infected matched cohort. We hypothesised that both cohorts would have worse outcomes than the control group, and that those who failed an initial IDHPE and required a 2SR would have a worse outcome than those treated initially with a 2SR.

A retrospective review identified 137 patients from our institutional arthroplasty database who had an infected primary THA between 1986–2013. We excluded patients with less than one-year follow-up. Mean follow-up was 60 months (12–187 months). A control cohort was identified and matched according to age and Charlton Comorbidity Index (CCI). Harris Hip Scores, Short Form 12 and WOMAC scores were compared between our control group and our infected cohort.

Sixty-eight patients were treated with a 2SR and 69 patients were treated with an IDHPE. There was a 59% success rate in eradicating the infection with an IDHPE. All of the 28 patients who failed an IDHPE later went on to a 2SR. Outcome scores for the 2SR cohort were significantly worse than the non-infected controls (p0.05). There was no difference in outcome scores when comparing our 2SR cohort to our failed IDHPE (p>0.05).

Previous studies have focused on eradication rates. However, it is important to consider patient outcome scores when deciding the best treatment. Infected patients treated with a successful IDHPE had similar outcomes to non-infected patients. Patients that failed IDHPE and went onto 2SR had similar outcomes to those that had a 2SR alone. IDHPE should still be considered in the treatment algorithm of infected THA.

Aim. Irrigation and debridement with an irrigation solution are essential components of the surgical management of acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Nevertheless, there is a lack of agreement regarding the most effective solution to use. The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature concerning the efficacy of different irrigation solutions over bacterial biofilm. Method. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus databases from inception to September 1, 2023. We combined terms related to PJI, biofilm and irrigation solutions studied in vitro. We performed a network meta-analysis to analyze which irrigation solution achieved a higher reduction of colony forming units (CFU) after specific exposure times, always with a maximum of five minutes, replicating intraoperative conditions. Effect-size was summarized with logarithmic response ratio (logRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The rank probability for each treatment was calculated using the p-scores. Results. We screened 233 potential sources. Following deduplication, screening and full-text review, four studies with ten irrigation solutions for different duration of exposures were included, always less than five minutes, replicating intraoperative conditions. Solutions were studied over mature biofilms of most frequent bacteria grown over metal, bone cement or polyethylene surfaces. The highest effect was achieved with povidone iodine 10% during 5 minutes (logRR: −12.02; 95% CI: −14.04, −9.99). The best ranked solutions were povidone iodine 10% during five, three and one minute (respective p-scores: 0.977, 0.932, 0.887) and its combination with hydrogen peroxide for 3 minutes (p-score: 0.836). Povidone iodine 0.3% acting for 5 minutes completed the top 5 best ranked solutions in this study (p-score: 0.761). We assumed that there were no inconsistencies in our network because after examining both scenarios, with and without inconsistencies, the results were not significantly different. Conclusions. Our results show that 10% povidone-iodine is the best antiseptic solution when studied in vitro in the context of prosthetic joint infection. However, the included studies did not evaluate the possible cytotoxic effects of these solutions. This should also be taken into account before choosing the most appropriate antiseptic solution

Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Post-Operative Pain Control in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomised, Double Blind, Controlled Study. Pericapsular Injection with Free Ropivacaine Provides Equivalent Post-Operative Analgesia as Liposomal Bupivacaine following Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Total Knee Arthroplasty in the 21st Century: Why Do They Fail? A Fifteen-Year Analysis of 11,135 Knees. Cryoneurolysis for Temporary Relief of Pain in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multi-Center, Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Trial. Pre-Operative Freezing of Sensory Nerves for Post-TKA Pain: Preliminary Results from a Prospective, Randomised, Double-Blind Controlled Trial. Proximalization of the Tibial Tubercle Osteotomy: A Solution for Patella Infera during Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Based on Species of Infecting Organism: A Decision Analysis. Alpha-Defensin Test for Diagnosis of PJI in the Setting of Failed Metal-on-Metal Bearings or Corrosion. Risk of Reinfection after Irrigation and Debridement for Treatment of Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection following TKA. Serum Metal Levels for the Diagnosis of Adverse Local Tissue Reaction Secondary to Corrosion in Metal-on-Polyethylene Bearing Total Hip Arthroplasty. Intra-Articular Injection for Painful Hip OA - A Randomised, Double-Blinded Study. Six-Year Follow-up of Hip Decompression with Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate to Treat Femoral Head Osteonecrosis. No Benefit of Computer-Assisted TKA: 10-Year Results of a Prospective Randomised Study

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

Background. Irrigation and débridement (I&D), often with exchange of modular polyethylene components, is commonly used to treat acute periprosthetic infection (PPI) following total joint arthroplasty. Two-stage revision, the “Gold Standard” for PPIs' is more invasive, requires more resources, creating controversy over recommended initial treatment of PPIs. This study seeks to determine the success rate of an “intent to treat” approach utilizing I&Ds with progression to two stage revisions as required. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 5193 hip and knee joint arthroplasties performed over a 63 month period and identified 46 (20 female, 26 male, mean age 60) deep postoperative (within 365 days) infections that were initially managed with an “intention to treat and cure” I&D, with or without poly exchange. We investigated the overall success rate of this approach and the requirements for additional surgical procedures, as well other associated factors. 34 were managed with I&Ds only and 12 with two stage revisions as well. Results. Infection eradication with implant retention was accomplished in 33 patients with I&Ds alone (72%). Of these, 25 required one I&D, 6 required 2 I&Ds and 2 required 3 I&Ds. 12 had 2-stage revisions, with 7 successes, 3 failures (1 each – amputation, fusion and infection recurrence after reimplantation) and 2 refusing revision of spacers. One had fusion after I&D without attempted staged revision. Thus, overall 40 of 46 (83%) were successfully managed after beginning with an “intent to treat” I&D and 33 of 46 (72%) patients avoided any surgeries other than I&Ds, thereby minimizing their cost, pain and morbidity. Conclusions. This preliminary study, which will require further follow-up, appears to support beginning the treatment of selected acute postoperative infected arthroplasties with an initial I&D and then tailoring further treatments based on individual factors. Level of Evidence This study was a retrospective comparative study, Level III evidence. Key Words: IRRIGATION AND DEBRIDEMENT, I&D, PERIPROSTHETIC INFECTION, TWO STAGE REVISION, TOTAL HIP, TOTAL KNEE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.