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

Aims. Adult patients with history of childhood infection pose a surgical challenge for total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to distorted bony anatomy, soft-tissue contractures, risk of reinfection, and relatively younger age. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine clinical outcome, reinfection rate, and complications in patients with septic sequelae after THA. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 91 cementless THAs (57 male and 34 female) performed between 2008 and 2017 in patients who had history of hip infection during childhood. Clinical outcome was measured using Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Modified Merle d’Aubigne and Postel (MAP) score, and quality of life (QOL) using 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-12) components: Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS); limb length discrepancy (LLD) and radiological assessment of the prosthesis was performed at the latest follow-up. Reinfection and revision surgery after THA for any reason was documented. Results. There was significant improvement in HHS, Modified Merle d’Aubigne Postel hip score, and QOL index SF 12-PCS and MCS (p < 0.001) and there was no case of reinfection reported during the follow-up. The minimum follow-up for the study was three years with a mean of 6.5 (SD 2.3; 3 to 12). LLD decreased from a mean of 3.3 cm (SD 1) to 0.9 cm (SD 0.8) during follow-up. One patient required revision surgery for femoral component loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated revision-free survivorship of 100% at the end of five years and 96.9% (95% confidence interval 79.8 to 99.6) at the end of ten years. Conclusion. We found that cementless THA results in good to excellent functional outcomes in patients with a prior history of childhood infection. There is an exceedingly low rate of risk of reinfection in these patients, even though complications are not uncommon. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):314–320

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

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

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

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

Introduction. The infection rate after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been shown to be 1–2% in multiple series and registry data. Irrigation, debridement, and polyethylene exchange (IDPE) is a common first line treatment in many cases of acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The reinfection rate in open IDPE procedures is variable with studies showing reinfection rates of 10–70% depending on various patient and microbial factors. Our pilot study aimed to determine if the bacterial load in infected total joints was sufficiently reduced by IDPE to allow for the use of post-debridement cultures as an independent marker of procedural success. Methods. 46 prosthetic joint infections underwent irrigation and debridement using 6L of normal saline and 3L of a normal saline and bacitracin mixture prior to the insertion of a new polyethylene liner. This protocol utilized a single equipment setup with all surgical members donning new gloves prior to polyethylene exchange. Between 3 and 5 intraoperative cultures were obtained both prior to and after debridement as per the surgeon's standard protocol. A two-tailed student's t-test was used to evaluate for any differences in the rate of positive culture between these two groups. Results. Of all pre- and post-debridement cultures sampled 66.5% and 60.7% of cultures were positive respectively. No significant difference in the rate of positive intraoperative culture was found between pre-debridement and post-debridement groups (p = 0.52). In 32 of 46 (69%) cases there was no difference in the total number of positive cultures despite a thorough debridement. Conclusions. Our data shows that open debridement of PJI does not provide a sterile environment, and post-debridement cultures should not be used as an independent marker of procedural success. The role of an irrigation and debridement to reduce the bacterial burden and potentiate the clearance of an infection is established but its efficacy is unclear, and the inability to create a post-debridement sterile environment is a concern

The infection rate after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been shown to be 1–2% in multiple series and registry data. Irrigation, debridement, and polyethylene exchange (IDPE) is a common first line treatment in many cases of acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The reinfection rate in open IDPE procedures is variable with studies showing reinfection rates of 10–70% depending on various patient and microbial factors. Our pilot study aimed to determine if the bacterial load in infected total joints was sufficiently reduced by IDPE to allow for the use of post-debridement cultures as an independent marker of procedural success. 46 prosthetic joint infections underwent irrigation and debridement using 6L of normal saline and 3L of a normal saline and bacitracin mixture prior to the insertion of a new polyethylene liner. This protocol utilized a single equipment setup with all surgical members donning new gloves prior to polyethylene exchange. Between 3 and 5 intraoperative cultures were obtained both prior to and after debridement as per the surgeon's standard protocol. A two-tailed student's t-test was used to evaluate for any differences in the rate of positive culture between these two groups. Of all pre- and post-debridement cultures sampled 66.5% and 60.7% of cultures were positive respectively. No significant difference in the rate of positive intraoperative culture was found between pre-debridement and post-debridement groups (p = 0.52). In 32 of 46 (69%) cases there was no difference in the total number of positive cultures despite a thorough debridement. Our data shows that open debridement of PJI does not provide a sterile environment, and post-debridement cultures should not be used as an independent marker of procedural success. The role of an irrigation and debridement to reduce the bacterial burden and potentiate the clearance of an infection is established but its efficacy is unclear, and the inability to create a post-debridement sterile environment is a concern

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and is time consuming and expensive to treat. Our management generally relies on identification of the infecting organism(s) in order to define the appropriate treatment strategy. Patients with culture-negative PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and to the wider multidisciplinary team. This study compares the outcomes of 50 consecutive complex culture-positive (deemed unsuitable for single stage exchange) and 50 culture-negative THAs managed with two-stage revision arthroplasty with a minimum of five years follow-up. Culture-negative PJIs were associated with older age, smoking, external referral source and greater use of preoperative antibiotics. There was however no significant difference in outcome between these groups of patients with a similar complication rates and reinfection rates of 6% at 5 years. Culture negative periprosthetic sepsis generates concern, and is often considered a poor prognostic indicator. This study suggests that a strict 2 stage protocol is associated with satisfactory outcomes in such cases

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

We treated 50 consecutive patients with infected total hip arthroplasties according to a standard protocol. Previous surgery to eradicate the infection had been attempted in 13 patients and discharging sinuses were present in 20. Aspiration arthrography was routinely carried out before our interventions. The first stage was a meticulous removal of all foreign and potentially infected material. Samples were taken for culture and a thorough lavage carried out. Antibiotic-loaded beads were placed in the femoral shaft and an antibiotic-loaded cement ball in the acetabulum. At the second stage an uncemented arthroplasty was introduced. Bone allograft was used in 18 patients. The interval between procedures was usually three weeks, but this was extended if the wound was slow to heal or there was extensive bony destruction. Appropriate antibiotics were given for three months. At a mean follow-up of 5.8 years the rate of reinfection was 8% (4 patients). Two of these patients have had another, successful, two-stage revision. At this medium-term review, a satisfactory clinical and radiological outcome was obtained in all except two patients

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).

Aims

The aims of this study were to develop an in vivo model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in cemented hip hemiarthroplasty, and to monitor infection and biofilm formation in real-time.