Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. Results. The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m. 2. ; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. Conclusion. Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247–1253

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. Methods. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. Results. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). Conclusion. HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):924–932

This meta analysis address the relationship between infection developing after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and heterotopic ossification (HO). To identify the gaps in available knowledge, we screened for full-length peer-reviewed research articles listed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science over the past 20 years. The following search terms and Boolean operators were used: heterotopic ossification AND infection AND (hip replacement OR hip arthroplasty). The search resulted in the identification of as few as 14 articles describing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and HO after THA. Data summarized from 6 studies suitable for further meta-analysis yielded a cumulative sample size of 753 observations, with 186 recorded events of HO. The pooled RR was estimated at 2.22 (95% CI: 1.00 to 4.91, p = 0.0497), suggesting a more than twofold risk of HO compared to the group without PJI. In conclusion, there is a clear association between a higher risk of HO and PJI. Basic research findings support the hypothesis that bacterial pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) can lead to osteogenesis through a toll-like receptor (TLR) and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) pathway in the course of HO development. Together, these results suggest that HO prophylaxis should always be prescribed in PJI after THA. Moreover, during revisions following THA for presumed non-septic reasons, the presence of HO warrants consideration for infection, as there is a potential heightened risk of pathologic ossification induced by PAMPs. Keywords: heterotopic ossification; total hip arthroplasty; total hip replacement; periprosthetic joint infection; bacteria. Authors Ł. Pulik and P. Łęgosz contributed equally to this work

Objectives. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods. We searched two literature databases, using terms that encompass all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, as well as PJI and statistical terms reflecting diagnostic parameters. The findings are summarized as a narrative review. Results. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were the two most commonly published serum biomarkers. Most evidence did not identify other serum biomarkers that are clearly superior to ESR and CRP. Other serum biomarkers have not demonstrated superior sensitivity and have failed to replace CRP and ESR as first-line screening tests. D-dimer appears to be a promising biomarker, but more research is necessary. Factors that influence serum biomarkers include temporal trends, stage of revision, and implant-related factors (metallosis). Conclusion. Our review helped to identify factors that can influence serum biomarkers’ level changes; the recognition of such factors can help improve their diagnostic utility. As such, we cannot rely on ESR and CRP alone for the diagnosis of PJI prior to second-stage reimplantation, or in metal-on-metal or corrosion cases. The future of serum biomarkers will likely shift towards using genomics and proteomics to identify proteins transcribed via messenger RNA in response to infection and sepsis. Cite this article: A. Saleh, J. George, M. Faour, A. K. Klika, C. A. Higuera. Serum biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infections. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:85–93. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0323

Aims. A revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has a major effect on the patient’s quality of life, including walking capacity. The objective of this case control study was to investigate the histological and ultrastructural changes to the gluteus medius tendon (GMED) in patients revised due to a PJI, and to compare it with revision THAs without infection performed using the same lateral approach. Methods. A group of eight patients revised due to a PJI with a previous lateral approach was compared with a group of 21 revised THAs without infection, performed using the same approach. The primary variables of the study were the fibril diameter, as seen in transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and the total degeneration score (TDS), as seen under the light microscope. An analysis of bacteriology, classification of infection, and antibiotic treatment was also performed. Results. Biopsy samples from the GMED from infected patients revealed a larger fibril diameter than control patients, as seen in the TEM (p < 0.001). Uninfected patients were slightly older and had their revisions performed significantly later than the infected patients. Histologically, samples from infected patients revealed significantly more vascularity (p < 0.001), the presence of glycosaminoglycans (p < 0.001), and a higher TDS (p = 0.003) than the control patients. The majority of patients had staphylococcal infections of various species. Conclusion. More histological degeneration in the GMED was found in patients undergoing THA revision surgery due to PJI than in patients undergoing THA revision surgery due to other reasons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):628–635

Aims. One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed. Results. A total of eight repeat septic revisions (25%) developed a further infection-related failure, and the five-year infection-free survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57 to 92). Nine (28%) underwent a further all-cause revision and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 74% (95% CI 52 to 88). Neither the MSIS classification of the host status (p = 0.423) nor the limb status (p = 0.366) was significantly associated with further infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat one-stage exchange for PJI in THA is associated with a favourable five-year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival. Notably, the rate of infection control is encouraging when compared with the reported rates after repeat two-stage exchange. The results can be used to counsel patients and help clinicians make informed decisions about treatment. With the available number of patients, further infection-related failure was not associated with the MSIS host or limb status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):27–33

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Leukocyte esterase (LE) is a synovial marker that has proven utility in the diagnosis of PJI. The purpose of this prospective study was to (1) identify the optimal cutoff for the use of LE in the diagnosis of PJI and (2) determine whether performance of the LE strip test varied by infecting organism. This prospective study enrolled 1,015 patients undergoing hip or knee revision arthroplasty at a single institution from 2009 to September 2021. PJI was defined using a modified version of 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria that excluded LE when calculating the ICM score. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the utility of the LE strip test in the diagnosis of PJI. 973 patients were included in the analyses. 246 (25.4%) were classified as ICM-positive and 727 (74.6%) were classified as ICM-negative. An LE cutoff of “1+” (AUC 0.819, sensitivity 73.2%, specificity 90.6%) had superior accuracy to an LE cutoff of “2+” (AUC 0.713, sensitivity 43.9%, specificity 98.8%) in the overall diagnosis of PJI (p<0.001). When stratifying by organism type, an LE cutoff of “1+” had the best diagnostic utility for PJI caused by methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (AUC 0.888, sensitivity 87.0%, n=23) followed by Streptococcus spp. (AUC 0.882, sensitivity 85.7%, n=28), coagulase negative Staphylococci (AUC 0.836, sensitivity 76.6%, n=47), methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (AUC 0.806, sensitivity 70.6%, n=34), culture negative (AUC 0.793, sensitivity 67.9%, n=56), and gram negative rods (AUC 0.763, sensitivity 61.9%, n=21). To our knowledge, this is the largest study evaluating the utility of the LE strip test in the diagnosis of PJI. Based on our findings, it appears that a “1+” cutoff has higher diagnostic utility than a cutoff of “2+”

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

Elevated synovial leukocyte count is a minor criterion derived from the musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) widely used in clinical practice for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. There is evidence to suggest analysis within 1 hour, preferentially within 30 minutes, of aspiration reduces the risk of ex vivo cell lysis occurring during prolonged transport. Multiple site working is more common practice and the availability of a lab on site to perform these tests is not always possible. We aimed to assess whether we could safely perform synovial leukocyte counts within our cold site in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. We reviewed all orthopaedic synovial fluid aspirates within the lower limb arthroplasty unit from April 2021 – April 2022 performed at South Tees NHS Foundation Trust. We assessed time from aspirate to the lab using electronic data resources. This information was compared with the labs ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count to determine the impact of delays on testing. 110 patients (34.5% hips and 63.6% knees) were identified between two sites. Time from aspirate to lab ranged from 0 mins to 26 hrs 34 mins. Mean time to processing was 3hrs 10 mins. 50% of all samples had a synovial leukocyte count performed. 67% of patients had a cell differential performed. There was no difference in the ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count between samples process in < 2hours vs > 6 hours. We conclude that it is safe practice to perform joint aspirates for the work up of periprosthetic joint infections in sites where no laboratory is immediately available as the delay to processing synovial fluid does not alter the ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count. This study will provide evidence to enable the work up of periprosthetic joint infections in cold centres and therefore reduce the delay in diagnosis and proceeding management

High doses of intra-articular (IA) antibiotics has been shown to effectively achieve a minimal biofilm eradication concentration which could mitigate the need for removal of infected but well-ingrown cementless components of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there are concerns that percutaneous catheters could lead to multi-resistance or multi-organism peri-prosthetic joint infections (PJI) following single stage THA revisions for PJI. Eighteen single-stage revision procedures were performed for acute (N=9) or chronic (N=9) PJI following a primary (N=12) or revision (N=6) cementless THA. Modular and loosened components were replaced. All well ingrown components were retained. Two Hickmann catheters were placed in the joint space. Along with intravenous antibiotics, IA antibiotics were injected twice a day for two weeks, followed by 3 months of oral antibiotics. Per-operative cultures demonstrated 4 multi-bacterial PJIs. None of the patients developed post-operatively an AB related renal or systemic dysfunction. At a mean follow-up of 38 months [range, 8–72] all patients had normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell count. Four had a slightly elevated C-reactive protein but were completely symptom free and did not show any sign of loosening at a mean of 27 months [range, 16–59]. Addition of high doses of IA antibiotics following single-stage revision for PJI in cementless THA, is an effective and safe treatment option that allows for retention of well-ingrown components. We found no evidence for residual implant infection or catheter induced multi-resistance. Total hip arthroplasty, revision surgery, Periprosthetic Joint Infection, Intra-articular antibiotics. Level 4 (Case series)

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition. Methods. A retrospective analysis included 78 PJI patients (29 hips; 49 knees) who had undergone multiple prior surgical interventions. Our cohort was treated with single-stage revision using a supplementary intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Of these 78 patients, 59 had undergone more than two prior failed debridement and implant retentions, 12 patients had a failed arthroplasty resection, three hips had previously undergone failed two-stage revision, and four had a failed one-stage revision before their single-stage revision. Previous failure was defined as infection recurrence requiring surgical intervention. Besides intravenous pathogen-sensitive agents, an intra-articular infusion of vancomycin, imipenem, or voriconazole was performed postoperatively. The antibiotic solution was soaked into the joint for 24 hours for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), then extracted before next injection. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results. A total of 68 patients (87.1%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 85 months (24 to 133). The seven-year infection-free survival was 87.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79.4 to 95.8). No significant difference in infection-free survival was observed between hip and knee PJIs (91.5% (95% CI 79.9 to 100) vs 84.7% (95% CI 73.1 to 96.3); p = 0.648). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score was 76.1 points (63.2 to 92.4) and Hospital for Special Surgery score was 78. 2 (63.2 to 92.4) at the most recent assessment. Polymicrobial and fungal infections accounted for 14.1% (11/78) and 9.0% (7/78) of all cases, respectively. Conclusion. Single-stage revision with intra-articular antibiotic infusion can provide high antibiotic concentration in synovial fluid, thereby overcoming reduced vascular supply and biofilm formation. This supplementary route of administration may be a viable option in treating PJI after multiple failed prior surgeries for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):867–874

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) centers are garnering the attention of different arthroplasty surgeons and practices alike. Nonetheless, their value has yet to be proven. Therefore, we evaluated weather PJI centers produce comparable outcomes to the national average of THA PJIs on a national cohort. We performed a retrospective review of patient data available on PearlDiver from 2015 – 2021. PJI THA cases were identified through ICD-10 and CPT codes. Patients treated by 6 fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons from a PJI center were matched based on age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser comorbidity index at a 1:1 ratio to patients from the national cohort. Compared outcomes included LOS, ED visits, number of patients readmitted, total readmissions. Sample sized did not allow the evaluation of amputation, fusion or explantation. Normality was tested through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. And comparisons were made with Students t-tests and Chi Square testing. A total of 33,001 THA PJIs and were identified. A total of 77 patients were identified as treated by the PJI center cohort and successfully matched. No differences were noted in regard to age, gender distribution, CCI or ECI (p=1, 1, 1 and 0.9958 respectively). Significant differences were noted in mean LOS (p<0.43), number of patients requiring readmissions (p=0.001) and total number of readmission events (p<0.001). No difference was noted on ED visits. Our study demonstrates that a PJI for THA cases may be beneficial for the national growing trend of arthroplasty volume. Future data, that allows comparison of patient's specific data will allow for further validation of PJI centers and how these can play a role in helping the national PJI growing problem

Aims. To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less than two years. Patients and Methods. Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published algorithm. Results. DAIR was performed as part of a curative procedure in 46 hips in 42 patients. The mean age was 73.2 years (44.6 to 87.7), including 20 women and 22 men. In 34 hips in 32 patients (73.9%), PJI was confirmed. In 12 hips, the criteria for PJI were not fulfilled and antibiotics stopped. In 41 (89.1%) of all hips and in 32 (94.1%) of the confirmed PJIs, all criteria for DAIR were fulfilled. In patients with exogenous PJI, DAIR was performed not more than three days after referral. In haematogenous infections, the duration of symptoms did not exceed 21 days. In 28 hips, a single debridement and in six hips two surgical debridements were required. In 28 (87.5%) of 32 patients, the total treatment duration was three months. Failure was noted in three hips (9%). Long-term follow-up results (mean 4.0 years, 1.4 to 10) were available in 30 of 34 (88.2%) confirmed PJIs. The overall successful outcome rate was 91% in 34 hips, and 90% in 30 hips with long-term follow-up results. . Conclusion. Prompt surgical treatment with DAIR, following strict diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, in patients with suspected periprosthetic joint infection, can lead to high rates of success in eradicating the infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:330–6

Aims. Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all DAIRs, performed for confirmed infected primary hip arthropasty (n = 82) at out institution, between 1997 and 2013. Data recorded included full patient information and type of surgery. Outcome measures included complications, mortality, implant survivorship and functional outcome. Outcome was compared with two control groups matched for gender and age; a cohort of primary THAs (n = 120) and a cohort of two-stage revisions for infection (n = 66). Results. Mean age at DAIR was 69 years (33 to 87) and mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 17; standard deviation (. sd). 5). A total of 52 (63%) of DAIRs were for early PJI (less than six weeks). Greater success in the eradication of infection with DAIR was identified with early PJI, comprising an interval less than a week between onset of symptoms and exchange of modular components with the DAIR procedure. Eradication of infection, complications and re-operation rates were similar in the DAIR and two-stage revision groups. For hips with successful eradication of infection with DAIR, the five-year survival (98%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100) was similar to the primary THA group (98%; 95% CI 95 to 100) (n = 43; p = 0.3). The DAIR group had inferior mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) (38; 12 to 48) compared with the primary THA group (42; 15 to 48) (p = 0.02) but a significantly better mean OHS compared with the two-stage revision group (31; 0 to 48) (p = 0.008). Patients who required only one DAIR for eradication of infection had a similar mean OHS (41; 20 to 48) to the primary THA group (p = 0.2). Conclusion. The DAIR procedure is associated with a similar complication rate and ability to eradicate infection as two-stage revision. This study emphasises the need for exchange of modular components for improved chances of eradication of infection. This is the first study showing that DAIR is better than a two-stage revision regarding functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:614–22

Introduction. There has been a renewed interest in the surgical approach used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been well studied over the past decade, yet PJI remains one of the most devastating complications following THA. We studied the impact of direct anterior (DA) versus non-direct anterior (NA) surgical approaches on PJI, and examined the impact of new perioperative protocols on PJI rates following all surgical approaches at a single institution. Methods. 6086 continuous patients undergoing primary THA at a single institution from 2013–2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data obtained from electronic patient medical records included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, surgical approach, and presence of deep PJI. Deep PJI was defined according to National Healthcare Safety Network's (NHSN) criteria for joint space infection following prosthetic hip replacement. Infection rates were calculated yearly for the DA and NA approach groups. Covariates were assessed and used in multivariate analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios for risk of development of PJI with DA compared to NA approaches. In order to determine the effect of adopting a set of infection prevention protocols and patient optimization on PJI, we calculated odds ratios for PJI comparing patients undergoing THA for two distinct time periods: 2013–2014 and 2015–2016. These periods corresponded to before and after we implemented a set of perioperative infection protocols. Results. There were 1985 patients in the DA group and 4101 patients in the NA group. The overall rate of PJI at our institution during the study period was 0.82% (50/6086) and decreased from 0.96% (12/1245) in 2013 to 0.53% (10/1870) in 2016. There were 24 deep PJI's in the DA group (1.22%) and 26 deep PJI's in the NA group (0.63%) (p=0.0231). After multivariate analysis, the DA approach was 2.2 times more likely to result in PJI than the NA approach (95% CI OR 1.1–3.9, p=0.0062) for the overall study period. When stratified by time, patients undergoing THA utilizing any approach prior to adopting the infection prevention protocols (2013–2014), were 1.8 times more likely to have PJI compared to patients undergoing THA after the adoption of the protocols, however this result did not reach significance (95% CI OR 0.901–3.653, p=0.0953). Conclusions. We found a higher rate of PJI in DA versus NA approaches. However, adoption of infection prevention protocols patient optimization mitigated these PJI rates, such that they were equalized between the approach groups for the period following the use of infection prevention and patient optimization protocols. Institutional learning curves and adaptation of interventions aimed at PJI prevention positively contributed to the decreased rate of PJI observed for all approaches over time. Evidence: Level II – Case control

The gold standard for PJI treatment comprises the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, which are limited in their load bearing capacity[1]. Thus, developing an antibiotic-eluting UHMWPE bearing surface can improve the mechanical properties of spacers and improve the quality of life of PJI patients. In this study, we incorporated vancomycin into UHMWPE to investigate its elution characteristics, mechanical properties and its efficacy against an acute PJI in an animal model. Vancomycin hydrochloride was incorporated into UHMWPE (2 to 14%) by blending and consolidation. We studied drug elution with blocks in PBS and UV-Vis spectroscopy at 280 nm. We determined the tensile mechanical properties and impact strength [3]. We implanted osteochondral plugs in rabbits using either control UHMWPE, bone cement (40g) containing vancomycin (1g) and tobramycin (3.6g) or vancomycin-eluting UHMWPE (n=5) plugs in the patellofemoral groove of rabbits. All rabbits received a beaded titanium rod in the tibial canal. All groups received two doses of 5×10. 7. cfu of bioluminescent S. aureus in the distal tibial canal prior to insertion of the rod and the articular space after closure of the joint capsule. No intravenous antibiotics were used. Bioluminescence signal was measured when the rabbits expired, or at 21-day post-op. Hardware, polyethylene implants, and joint tissues were sonicated to further quantify live bacteria via plate seeding. Vancomycin elution increased with increasing drug loading. Vancomycin elution above MIC for 3 weeks and optimized mechanical properties were obtained at 6–7 wt% vancomycin loading in UHMWPE. In our lapine acute infection model using bioluminescent S. aureus, knees treated with UHMWPE without antibiotics and bone cement containing vancomycin and tobramycin had significantly higher bioluminescence compared to those treated with vancomycin-eluting UHMWPE. These results suggest that an antibiotic-eluting UHMWPE spacer with acceptable properties as a bearing surface could be used to treat periprosthetic joint infection in lieu of bone cement spacers and this could allow safer load bearing and a higher quality of life for the patients during treatment. In addition, this presents a safer alternative in cases where the second stage surgery for the implantation of new components is hindered

Synovasure has been designed and validated for use in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It has a reported sensitivity of 97.4% (CI 86.1–99.6%) and specificity of 95.8% (CI 90.5–98.6%), higher than the variable results reported for aspiration by most units. At a cost of £500 per test, we aimed to establish cost-effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy, to determine its role in routine practice. We developed a protocol for pre-operative aspiration or intra-operative use. Prerequisites for entry were a high index of clinical suspicion for PJI and equivocal standard investigations. All cases were discussed at the lower limb arthroplasty MDT and approved only if use would change clinical management. Over 15 months, 36 tests were approved for 22 aspirations (5 hip, 17 knee) and 14 intra-operative cases (7 hip, 7 knee). 10/36 had undergone previous revision surgery. 35/36 cases complied with the protocol. All 22 Synovasure aspirations were negative, corresponding to the microbiology in all but one case; thought to be a contaminant. In the intra-operative group there was one true positive and 12 true negative tests, giving a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 2.5–100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 73.5–100%). Synovasure influenced decision making in 34/36 procedures. One test failed and in another there was evidence of frank infection. In 11 cases no surgery was performed versus a potential two-stage revision and in 21 cases a single rather than two-stage revision was performed. Resulting in estimated savings of £686,690, offset against a cost of £18,000. The Synovasure test was found to be sensitive and specific and can aid decision-making particularly in complex cases with an equivocal diagnosis of PJI. The use of this test through a robust protocol driven peer review MDT process not only reduces patient morbidity but drives significant efficiency savings

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult to diagnose. A variety of techniques have been described. The efficacy of the alpha-defensin laboratory test was examined and compared with other established modalities in the diagnostic workup of ‘real world’ arthroplasty patients. Methods. This was a retrospective review of 210 episodes (86 hips, 124 Knees) in 172 patients at one centre, and included samples from acute admissions, elective aspirations, and planned revisions. MSIS (musculoskeletal infection society) major and minor criteria were used for diagnosing PJI. Each patient was investigated using a standardised protocol with inflammatory markers, synovial fluid analysis for white cell count (SWCC) and polymorphonuclear leukoctyes percentage (PMN %), and synovial fluid/tissue culture. Synovial fluid was also tested for alpha-defensin. Results. Fifty-two (24.8%) episodes were defined as ‘PJI’ using MSIS criteria, and 158 ‘non-PJI’. Alpha-defensin had 71.2% (95% CI 56.9–82.9) sensitivity and 94.3% (89.5–97.4) specificity. The positive predictive value was 80.4% (68.1–88.8) with negative predictive value of 90.9% (6.6–93.9). Thirty-seven (of 52 PJI episodes) were ‘culture positive’ (identical microorganism on ≥2 samples). Eighty (of 158 non-PJI) satisfied none of the major or minor MSIS criteria, and none of these patients subsequently had a PJI. In this sub-set of 117, alpha-defensin had 64.9% (47.5–79.8) sensitivity and 98.7% (92.9–99.9) specificity, whilst the sensitivities of CRP (>20), SWCC (>3000) and PMN (>80%) were 94.6% (81.8–99.3), 86.5% (71.2–95.5) and 83.8% (68.0–93.8) respectively. There were 93 episodes where at least 1 minor criterion was satisfied and/or a sinus was present, but were not ‘culture positive’. In these, alpha-defensin had 85.7% (57.2–98.2) sensitivity and 88.4% (78.4–94.9) specificity. Discussion and conclusion. The alpha-defensin laboratory test has a lower sensitivity than previously reported, limiting its use for diagnosing PJI. SWCC and PMN % have similar sensitivity and are cheaper. We no use the alpha-defensin test

Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care centre had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. 113 Patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, and cultures. Sixty-two of the 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum ESR and CRP were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid WBC, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a CT scan, and 3 (5%) an MRI. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI