Introduction. Approximately 2,000 Skeletal transcutaneous osseointegration (STOI) procedures have been performed worldwide as of 2020, more than half of which have been performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia using a press-fit technique with either ILP or OPL implant designs. Despite the consistently demonstrated clinical benefits, concerns regarding potential complications following STOI have slowed its widespread adoption. As more patients are followed for a longer period of time, longitudinal studies have confirmed complication rates are very acceptable, similar to those of total ankle and total elbow replacements. One of the major risk category is implant removal. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the complications and technical issues associated with transtibial osseointegration implant removal due to any cause. The focus here will be on the press-fit ILP and OPL implants, including the indications for removal and patient outcomes following removal. Materials & Methods. A review of our osseointegration registry between November 2010 and March 2022 was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients who have undergone removal of a transtibial osseointegration implant due to any cause. Selected patients either had a follow-up of at least two years or had their index osseointegration surgery at least two years prior to when the study was performed. Patients who have had osseointegration at other anatomic levels, and patients who underwent simultaneous total knee replacement with transtibial osseointegration were excluded from the registry search. Results. There were a total of 148 transtibial osseointegration procedures performed during the study period, with 97 (65.5%) performed in males and 51 (34.5%) performed in females. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure is 50.4 years (range 16.8–87.9, SD 14.1). In the study cohort of 22 cases requiring implant removals, 12 (54.5%) were male and 10 (45.5%) were female. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure in this cohort is 51.3 (range 37.4–82.6, SD 10.7) and average BMI 30.3 (range 21.9–40.9, SD 5.8). Although men comprised the majority of removals, women had a greater relative risk (Fisher exact test p=0.032). The average duration from time of STOI to removal was 2.6 years (range 0.1–6.8, SD 1.9) within this 11.5 year follow-up period. The most frequent indication was infection (54.6%, n=12) followed equally by pain (13.6%, n=3), aseptic loosening (13.6%, n=3) and implant fracture (13.6%, n=3), and lastly failure to integrate (4.6%, n=1). Conclusions. Of the 22 removals, 12 were reimplanted at the same anatomical level (10 were reimplanted within 6 months, 1 within 12 months, and 1 within 24 months). 11 of these cases currently wear their prosthetic legs for more than 13 hours daily. 1 case was recently reimplanted and still completing their loading program. Of the patients who were not reimplanted at the same anatomical level, 1 required proximal amputation with transfemoral osseointegration. 3 patients converted to traditional socket prostheses (TSP) due to pain, and 1 underwent proximal amputation and converted to TSP due to infection. 3 cases are currently awaiting transtibial osseointegration reimplantation, and 1 patient was deceased. 1 patient was lost to follow-up

Aims. The timing of when to remove a circular frame is crucial; early removal results in refracture or deformity, while late removal increases the patient morbidity and delay in return to work. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a staged reloading protocol. We report the incidence of mechanical failure following both single-stage and two stage reloading protocols and analyze the associated risk factors. Methods. We identified consecutive patients from our departmental database. Both trauma and elective cases were included, of all ages, frame types, and pathologies who underwent circular frame treatment. Our protocol is either a single-stage or two-stage process implemented by defunctioning the frame, in order to progressively increase the weightbearing load through the bone, and promote full loading prior to frame removal. Before progression, through the process we monitor patients for any increase in pain and assess radiographs for deformity or refracture. Results. There were 244 frames (230 patients) included in the analyses, of which 90 were Ilizarov type frames and 154 were hexapods. There were 149 frames which underwent single-stage reloading and 95 frames which underwent a two-stage reloading protocol. Mechanical failure occurred after frame removal in 13 frames (5%), which suffered refracture. There were no cases of change in alignment. There was no difference between refracture patients who underwent single-stage or two-stage reloading protocols (p = 0.772). In all, 14 patients had failure prevented through identification with the reloading protocol. Conclusion. Our reloading protocol is a simple and effective way to confirm the timing of frame removal and minimize the rate of mechanical failure. Similar failure rates occurred between patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage reloading protocols. If the surgeon is confident with clinical and radiological assessment, it may be possible to progress directly to stage two and decrease frame time and patient morbidity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):359–366

The Latarjet procedure is a well described method to stabilize anterior shoulder instability. There are concerns of high complication rates, one of these being a painful shoulder without instability due to screw irritation. The arthroscopic changes in the shoulder at time of screw removal compared to those pre-Latarjet have not been described in the literature. We conducted a retrospective review of arthroscopic videos between 2015 and 2022 of 17 patients at the time of their Latarjet screw removal and where available (n=13) compared them to arthroscopic findings at time of index Latarjet. Instability was an exclusion criterion. X-rays prior to screw removal were assessed independently by two observers blinded to patient details for lysis of the graft. Arthroscopic assessment of the anatomy and pathological changes were made by two shoulder surgeons via mutual consensus. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was analyzed as a measure for the inter-observer reliability for the radiographs. Our cohort had an average age of 21.5±7.7 years and an average period of 16.2±13.1 months between pre- and post-arthroscopy. At screw removal all patients had an inflamed subscapularis muscle with 88% associated musculotendinous tears and 59% had a pathological posterior labrum. Worsening in the condition of subscapularis muscle (93%), humeral (31%) and glenoid (31%) cartilage was found when compared to pre-Latarjet arthroscopes. Three failures of capsular repair were seen, two of these when only one anchor was used. X-ray review demonstrated 79% of patients had graft lysis. Excellent inter-rater reliability was observed with an ICC value of 0.82. Our results show a high rate of pathological change in the subscapularis muscle, glenoid labrum and articular cartilage in the stable but painful Latarjet. 79% of patients had graft lysis with prominent screws on X-ray

Removal of bullets retained within joints is indicated to prevent mechanical blockade, 3rd body wear and resultant arthritis, plus lead arthropathy and systemic lead poisoning. The literature is sparse on this subject, with mostly sporadic case reports utilizing hip arthroscopy. We report on the largest series of removal of bullets from the hip joints using open surgical. We reviewed prospectively collected data of patients who presented to a single institution with civilian gunshot injuries that breached the hip joint between 01 January 2009 and 31 December 2022. We included all cases where the bullet was retained within the hip joint area. Exclusion criteria: cases where the hip joint was not breached, bullets were not retained around the hip area or cases with isolated acetabulum involvement. One hundred and eighteen (118) patients were identified. One patient was excluded as the bullet embedded in the femur neck was sustained 10 years earlier. Of the remaining 117 patients, 70 had retained bullets around the hip joint. In 44 patients we undertook bullet removal using the followingsurgical hip dislocation (n = 18), hip arthrotomy (n = 18), removal at site of fracture fixation/replacement (n = 2), posterior wall osteotomy (n = 1), direct removal without capsulotomy (tractotomy) (n = 5). In 26 patients we did not remove bullets for the following reasons: final location was extra-capsular embedded in the soft tissues (n=17), clinical decision to not remove (n=4), patients’ clinical condition did not allow for further surgery (n= 4) and patient refusal (n=1). No patients underwent hip arthroscopy. With adequate pre-operative imaging and surgical planning, safe surgical removal of retained bullets in the hip joint can be achieved without the use of hip arthroscopy; using the traditional open surgical approaches of arthrotomy, tractotomy and surgical hip dislocation

Introduction. Traditionally, radiological union of fractures treated with an Ilizarov frame is confirmed by a period of dynamization - destabilisation of the frame for a period prior to removal. Reduced clinic availability during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a shift to selective dynamisation in our department, whereby lower risk patients had their frames removed on the same day as destabilisation. This study investigates the effects of this change in practice on outcomes and complication rates. Materials & Methods. Adult patients treated with circular frames between April 2020 and February 2022 were identified from our Ilizarov database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: - “dynamised” if their frame was destabilised for a period to confirm union prior to removal; or “not dynamised” if the decision was taken to remove the frame without a period of dynamisation, other than a short period in the clinic. A retrospective review of clinical notes was conducted to determine outcome. Results. 175 patients were included in the final analysis, 70 in the dynamised and 103 in the not dynamised groups, median follow-up was 33 months. 3 patients in the dynamised group failed dynamisation and had their period of fixation extended, subsequently having their frames removed without complication. Two patients suffered a refracture or non-union after frame removal in the dynamised group and none in the not dynamised group, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. In our practice, selective frame removal without a period of dynamisation appears safe. This has the potential to shorten frame time and reduce the number of clinic appointments and radiographic investigations for these patients. Some patients find the period of dynamisation uncomfortable and associated with pin site infection, which can be avoided. We plan to continue this practice and collect further data to confirm these findings in a larger dataset

Introduction. Retention and removal of children's orthopaedic metalwork is a contentious issue that has implications for current resource allocation, health economics, complication risks and can impact on future treatments. Understanding how to guide families make informed choices requires an overview of all the relevant evidence to date, and knowledge of where the evidence is lacking. Our aim was to systematically review the literature and provide a meta-analysis where possible, recommending either retention or removal. Materials and Methods. A search of the literature yielded 2420 articles, of which 22 papers were selected for the study analysis. Inclusion criteria: Any paper (evidence level I-IV) assessing the risks or benefits of retaining or removing orthopaedic metalwork in children. Exclusion criteria: Spinal implants; implant number < 40; < 75% recorded follow up; papers including implants in their analysis that always require removal; patients aged >18 years. Results. In total, 4988 patients (6412 implants) were included across all 22 studies. There was a significant amount of heterogenicity between studies. Overall the short term risks of metalwork retention and removal are low, with a few exceptions. In forearm plating re-fracture rates following removal were lower than those seen in studies looking at retained metalwork, provided removal occurred later than 12 months from the initial operation. Forearm re-fracture rates after removal of flexible nails significantly increased if removal was performed before 6 months. Major complications following routine metalwork removal from the proximal femur are relatively rare, with re-fracture rates of 1–5%. The majority of these re-fractures are seen in neuromuscular patients or in patients where removal occurs earlier than 6 months. Routine metalwork removal following SUFE had a complication rate of 30–60%. Conclusions. We found that there are certain subgroups of children that benefit from retention of metalwork and some that benefit from removal. There are several subgroups that we have identified which do not yet have sufficient long term evidence to make a balanced recommendation. We advise that families are made aware of what is known and what is unknown in order to allow for shared decision making

Introduction. Circular frames in the lower limbs have been removed by Specialist nurses in our clinics for the past 20 years using Entonox. This standard of care has helped reduce the burden of health care cost by avoiding removal of frames in theatres. We have recently started using Penthrox and present our encouraging initial data suggestive of superior efficacy when compared to Entonox. Materials and Methods. We included in this study the last ten patients on whom Entonox was used during frame removal and the first ten patients on whom Penthrox was used. Visual analogue pain scale was used to quantify pain at the beginning, middle and at the end of frame removal in both groups. The data was found to be normally distributed and Unpaired T test was used to analyse it. Confidence interval of 95% and p-value 0.05 deemed significant. Results. At the beginning of frame removal the Entonox group had a mean VAS score of 5.3 and Penthrox group had 3 (p-value 0.1194). During the middle of frame removal the Entonox group had a mean VAS score of 7.3 and Penthrox group had 4.5 (p-value 0.0379, statistically significant). At the end of frame removal the Entonox group had a mean VAS score of 4.2 and Penthrox group had 2.3 (p-value 0.1734). Penthrox group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS pain score when assessed in the middle of frame removal. The mean VAS score of both groups were not statistically significant at the beginning and end of frame removal. Conclusions. We found Penthrox to offer better pain relief when compared to Entonox during circular frame removal. This will encourage more patients to choose the option of frame removal in the clinic thereby reducing health care cost to the NHS. This pilot study will be followed by a multicentre comparative study where Entonox is in use in comparison to patients at Salford where the practice has shifted to Penthrox

Introduction. External fixation (EF) devices are commonly used in the management of complex skeletal trauma, as well as in elective limb reconstruction surgery for the management of congenital and acquired pathology. The subsequent removal of an EF is commonly performed under a general anaesthetic in an operating theatre. This practice is resource intensive and limits the amount of operating theatre time available for other surgical cases. We aimed to assess the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative method of analgesia to facilitate EF removal in an outpatient setting. Materials & Methods. This prospective case series evaluated the first 20 consecutive cases of EF removal in the outpatient clinic between 10/06/22 to 16/09/22. Regional anaesthesia using ultrasound-guided blockade of peripheral nerves was administered using 1% lidocaine due to its rapid onset and short half-life. Patients were assessed for additional analgesia requirement, asked to evaluate their experience and perceived pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results. Twenty patients were included in the study. The mean age was 46.6 years (range 21–85 years). Two thirds were male patients (N=13). Post procedure all patients indicated positive satisfaction ratings, each participant responding as either ‘satisfied’ (N=4), ‘very satisfied’ (N=15) or ‘highly satisfied’ (N=1). In addition, 85% of participants reported they would opt for this method of EF removal in future should it be necessary. VAS for pain immediately following completion of the procedure was low, with an average score of 0.45 (range 0–4), where a score of 0= ‘No pain’, and 10 = ‘worst pain possible’. Conclusions. We present the first description of outpatient EF removal using sole regional anaesthesia, with a prospective case series of 20 EF removed in fully awake patients. This novel technique is cost-effective, reproducible, and safe. This not only reduces the burden of these surgical cases on an operating list but also improves patient experience when compared to other forms of conscious sedation. By eliminating the use of Entonox and methoxyflurane for sedation and analgesia, this project demonstrates a method of improving environmental sustainability of surgery, anaesthesia and operating theatres

Olecranon Osteotomy is a common approach used in the management of intraarticular distal humerus fractures. Significant complication rates have been associated with this procedure, including non-union rates of 0–13% and implant removal rates between 12–86%. This study is a multicentre retrospective study involving the largest cohort of olecranon osteotomies in the literature, examining implant fixation types, removal rates and associated complications. Patients were identified between 2007 and 2017 (minimum one year follow-up) via Canadian Classification of Health Interventions (CCI) coding and ICD9/10 codes by our health region's data information service. CCI intervention codes were used to identify patients who underwent surgery for their fracture with an olecranon osteotomy. Reasons for implant removal were identified from a chart review. Our primary outcome was implant removal rates. Categorical data was assessed using Chi square test and Fischer's Exact test. Ninety-nine patients were identified to have undergone an olecranon osteotomy for treatment of a distal humerus fracture. Twenty patients had their osteotomy fixed with a plate and screws and 67 patients were fixed with a tension band wire. Eleven patients underwent “screw fixation”, consisting of a single screw with or without the addition of a wire. One patient had placement of a cable-pin system. Of patients who underwent olecranon osteotomy fixation, 34.3% required implant removal. Removal rates were: 28/67 for TBW (41.8%), 6/20 plates (30%), 0/1 cable-pin and 0/11 for osteotomies fixed with screw fixation. Screw fixation was removed less frequently than TBW p<.006. TBW were more commonly removed than all other fixation types p<.043. Screws were less commonly removed than all other fixation types p<.015. TBW were more likely to be removed for implant irritation than plates, p<.007, and all other implants p<.007. The average time to removal was 361 days (80–1503 days). A second surgeon was the surgeon responsible for the removal in 10/34 cases (29%). TBWs requiring removal were further off the olecranon tip than those not removed p=.006. TBWs were associated with an OR of 3.29 (CI 1.10–9.84) for implant removal if implanted further than 1mm off bone. Nonunion of the osteotomy occurred in three out of 99 patients (3%). K-wires through the anterior ulnar cortex did not result in decreased need for TBW removal. There was no relation between plate prominence and the need for implant removal. There was no association between age and implant removal. The implant removal rate was 34% overall. Single screw fixation was the best option for osteotomy fixation, as 0/11 required hardware removal, which was statistically less frequent than TBW at 28/67. Screw fixation was removed less frequently than TBW and screw fixation was less commonly removed than all other fixation types. Only 6/20 (30%) plates required removal, which is lower than previously published rates. Overall, TBW were more commonly removed than all other fixation types and this was also the case if hardware irritation was used as the indication for removal. Nonunion rates of olecranon osteotomy were 3%

Aim. To evaluate the efficiency of pulse lavage combined with electrical fields to remove biofilm from a metallic surface. Method. Using a 12-well culture plate designed for the application of electrical fields, strains of S. epidermidis were incubated at each well for 24 hours at 37ºC. After incubation, supernatant culture medium was removed, and each well was filled with 3ml of normal saline. Six different models were compared: a) control, b) low-pressure pulse lavage, c) high-pressure pulse lavage, d) pulsed electrical fields, e) low-pressure pulse lavage in combination with pulsed electrical fields, and f) high-pressure pulse lavage in combination with pulsed electrical fields. In all cases, exposure time was set to 25 seconds. In the electrical field models, 50 pulses were applied. After exposure, each bottom electrode was scraped carefully to release adhered bacteria. Subsequently, different dilutions of biofilm removed were spread onto Müller Hinton agar plates and incubated for 24h at 37 ºC, and colony-forming units (CFU) per milliliters were counted. Bacterial counts were then compared to the control model. Results. High-pressure pulse lavage combined with pulsed electrical fields showed the greatest biofilm removal with reductions of up to 11.9 logarithms when compared to the control group. The lowest reduction was achieved by low-pressure pulsed lavage (4.7 logs). All reductions showed statistically significant differences. Conclusion. The results of our comparative study between different models demonstrates high reduction rates for biofilm removal. Further in vivo studies are needed to evaluate the capacity of the combination of high-pressure pulse lavage with pulsed electrical fields in removing bacterial biofilm in real conditions

Aim. There is a lack of data supporting the use of doxycycline as a single agent after removing infected orthopaedic metalwork. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of doxycycline compared with other single antibiotic regimens used at our specialist orthopaedic hospital. Methods. A retrospective observational study including all adult patients diagnosed with an orthopaedic metalwork infection due to staphylococci. All patients were managed with the removal of metalwork, and multiple intraoperative samples were sent for culture, followed by the administration of at least four weeks of oral antibiotics. Antibiotic selection was on the recommendation of an infection consultant. Infection outcome was assessed as the proportion of patients meeting the OVIVA Trial definition of definite failure at follow-up. The probability of definite failure for doxycycline and the alternatives group was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival method. All adverse drug reactions (ADR) during treatment were analysed. Results. Seventy-nine orthopaedic metalwork infections were identified between July 2017 and July 2021. Forty-four were prosthetic joints, and 35 were fracture-related metalwork. In 54 cases, the infecting organism was Staphylococcus aureus, and 25 were due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Forty-four were treated with doxycycline 100mg 12 hourly, and 35 were treated with alternatives (flucloxacillin 1g 6-hourly n=21 and clindamycin 450mg 6-hourly n=14). Overall, 70 patients (88.6%) were infection-free after a median follow-up of 23 months (IQR, 19 – 44). 38 (82.3%) were infection-free in the doxycycline group compared with 32 (91.4%) patients treated with alternatives. Of the failures in the alternatives group, all 3 received flucloxacillin. Survival analysis showed no significant difference in time to treatment failure between doxycycline and alternative antibiotics. Eighteen patients experienced an ADR: 2 nausea, one rash and one vaginal candidiasis due to doxycycline. Four diarrhoea, one reflux, two rashes and one headache due to clindamycin; 1 nausea and five diarrhoea due to flucloxacillin. Four patients required discontinuation therapy, two due to clindamycin and two due to flucloxacillin. Conclusions. In our cohort of patients, doxycycline monotherapy was an effective and well-tolerated oral option for treating staphylococcal infection following debridement and removal of orthopaedic metalwork

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem. Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. Forty-two loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines. More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. Eighty-six percent of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4cm. Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis

Background. In order to restore the neutral limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgical procedure usually starts with removing osteophytes in varus osteoarthritic knees. However, there are no reports in the literature regarding the exact influence of osteophyte removal on alignment correction. The purpose of this study was to define the influence of osteophyte removal alone on limb alignment correction in the coronal plane in TKA for varus knee. Methods. Twenty-eight medial osteoarthritic knees with varus malalignment scheduled for TKA were included in this study. After registration of a navigation system, each knee was tested at maximum extension, and at 30, 40 and 60 degrees of flexion before and after osteophyte removal. External loads of 10 N-m valgus torque at each angle and in both states were applied. Subsequently, the widths of the resected osteophytes were measured. Results. The average pre-operative hip-knee-ankle angle was −12.6 degrees. The average width of osteophytes was 7.1 mm in femur and 4.8 mm in tibia, respectively. Angle corrections after osteophyte removal were 2.5 degrees at maximum extension, 2.8 degrees at 30 degrees flexion and 2.5 degrees at 60 degrees flexion; and at all angles, the difference was significant. There was positive correlation between the widths of osteophytes and the degree of angle correction at 30 degrees. Conclusion. Correlation was found at 30 degrees of knee flexion between the widths of osteophytes and the degree of angle correction in the coronal plane in TKA. We found the degree of angle correction per 1mm width of osteophyte removal to be 0.4 degrees

Introduction. Superficial pin site infection is a common problem associated with external fixation, which has been extensively reported. However, the incidence and risk factors with regards to deep infection is rarely reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate and explore the incidence and risk factors of deep infection following circular frame surgery. For the purpose of this study, deep infection was defined as: persistent discharge or collection for which surgical intervention was recommended. Materials and Methods. Retrospective review of all patients whom underwent frame surgery between 1. st. of April 2015 to 1. st. April 2019 in our unit with a minimum of 1 year follow up following frame removal. We recorded patient demographics, patient risk factors, trauma or elective procedure, number of days the frame was in situ, location of infection and fracture pattern. Results. 304 patients were identified. 27 patients were excluded as they were lost to follow up or had their primary frame surgery as a treatment for infection. This provided us with 277 patients for analysis. Mean age was 47 years (range 9–89 years), the male to female ratio was 1.5:1 and 80% were trauma frames. 13 patients (4.69%) developed deep infection and all occurred in trauma patients. Of the 13 patients who developed deep infection, 4 had infection before frame removal and 9 occurred after frame removal. 8 deep infections occurred within a year of frame removal, 1 occurred between 1 and 2 years. Within the 13 frame procedures for trauma, 12 were periarticular multifragmentary fractures, 3 of which were open, and the remaining was an open diaphyseal fracture. The periarticular fractures were more likely to develop deep infection than diaphyseal fractures (p–0.033). 12 patients (out of 13) also had concurrent minimally invasive internal fixation with screws in very close proximity of the wires. Conclusions. The rate of deep infection following circular frame surgery appears to be low. Pooled, multicentre data would be required to analyse risk factors however multifragmentary, periarticular fracture and the requirement for additional internal fixation appears to be an associated factor

Aim. To date, the value of culture results after a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for early (suspected) prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as risk indicators in terms of prosthesis retention is not clear. At one year follow-up, the relative risk of prosthesis removal was determined for culture-positive and culture-negative DAIRs after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. The secondary aim was to explore differences in patient characteristics, infection characteristics and outcomes between these two groups. Methods. A retrospective regional registry study was performed in a group of 359 patients (positive cultures: n = 299, negative cultures n = 60) undergoing DAIR for high suspicion of early PJI in the period from 2014 to 2019. Differences in patient characteristics, deceased patients and number of subsequent DAIRs between the positive and negative DAIR groups were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney, Pearson's Chi-square tests and Fisher's Exact tests. Results. Overall implant survival rate following DAIR was 89%. The relative risk for prosthesis removal was 7.4 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–53.1) in the positive DAIR group (37/299, 12.4%) compared to the negative DAIR group (1/60, 1.7%). The positive group had a higher body mass index (p = 0.034), rate of wound leakage of >10 days (p = 0.016) and more subsequent DAIRs (p = 0.006). Conclusion. Since implant survival results after DAIR are favorable, the threshold to perform a DAIR procedure in early PJI should be low in order to retain the prosthesis. A DAIR procedure in case of negative cultures does not seem to have unfavorable results in terms of prosthesis retention

Aim. The treatment of fracture-related infections (FRI) focuses on obtaining fracture healing and eradicating infection to prevent osteomyelitis. Treatment guidelines include removal, exchange, or retention of the implants used according to the stability of the fracture and the time from the infection. Infection of a fracture in the process of healing with a stable fixation may be treated with implant retention, debridement, and antibiotics. Nonetheless, the retention of an intramedullary nail is a potential risk factor for failure, and it is recommended to exchange or remove the nail. This surgical approach implies additional life-threatening risks in elderly fragile hip fracture patients. Our study aimed to analyze the results of implant retention for the treatment of infected nails in elderly hip fracture patients. Methods. Our retrospective analysis included patients 65 years of age or older with an acute fracture-related infection treated with implant retention from 2012 to 2020 in 6 Spanish hospitals with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients that required open reduction during the initial fracture surgery were excluded. Variables included in our analysis were patient demographics, type of fracture, date of FRI diagnosis, causative microorganism, and outcome. Treatment success was defined as fracture healing with infection eradication without the need for further hospitalization. Results. A total of 48 patients were identified. Eight patients with open reduction were excluded and 11 did not complete a 1-year follow-up. Out of the 29 remaining patients, the mean age was 81.5 years, with a 21:9, female to male ratio. FRI was diagnosed between 10 and 48 days after initial surgery (mean 26 days). Treatment success was achieved in 24 patients (82.7%). Failure was objectivated in polymicrobial infections or infections caused by microorganisms resistant to antibiofilm antibiotics. Seven patients required more than one debridement with a success rate of 57%. Twelve patients had an infection diagnosed after 21 days from the initial surgery and implant retention was successful in all of them. Conclusion. Our results suggest implant retention is a valid therapeutic approach for fracture-related infection in elderly hip fracture patients treated by closed reduction and intramedullary nailing

The well-fixed cemented femoral stem and surrounding cement can be challenging to remove. Success requires evaluation of the quality of the cement mantle (interface lucency), position of the stem, extent of cement below the tip of the stem and skill with the specialised instruments and techniques needed to remove the stem and cement without perforating the femur. Smooth surfaced stems can usually be easily removed from the surrounding cement mantle with a variety of stem extractors that attach to the trunnion or an extraction hole on the implant. Roughened stems can be freed from the surrounding cement mantle with osteotomes or a narrow high speed burr and then extracted with the above instruments. Following this, the well-fixed cement mantle needs to be removed. Adequate exposure and visualization of the cement column is essential to remove the well-fixed cement without damage to the bone in the femur. This is important since fixation of a revision femoral component typically requires at least 4 cm of contact with supportive cortical bone, which can be difficult to obtain if the femur is perforated or if the isthmus damaged. Proximally, cement in the metaphyseal region can be thinned with a high speed burr, then split radially and removed piecemeal. It is essential to remember that both osteotomes and high speed burrs will cut thru bone easier than cement and use of these instruments poses a substantial risk of unintended bone removal and perforation of the femur if done improperly. These instruments should, as a result, be used under direct vision. Removal of more distal cement in the femur typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO) to allow for adequate access to the well-fixed cement in the bowed femoral canal. An ETO also facilitates more efficient removal of cement in the proximal femur. The ETO should be carefully planned so that it is distal enough to allow for access to the end of the cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation since the straight cement removal instruments cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column without risk of perforation. An ETO that is too distal makes cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. Cement below the level of the ETO cannot be directly visualised and specialised instruments are necessary to safely remove this distal cement. Radiofrequency cement removal devices use high frequency (ultrasonic) radio waves to melt the cement within the canal. Although cement removal with these devices is time consuming and tedious, they do substantially reduce the chances of femoral perforation. These devices can, however, generate considerable heat locally and can result in thermal injury to the bone and surrounding tissues. Once the distal end of the cement mantle is penetrated, backbiting or hooked curettes can be use to remove any remaining cement from within the canal. It is important that all cement be removed from the femur since reamers used for preparation of the distal canal will be deflected by any retained cement, which could result in eccentric reaming and inadvertent perforation of the femur and make fixation of a new implant very challenging. An intra-operative x-ray can be very helpful to insure that all cement has been removed before reaming is initiated. One should always plan for a possible femoral perforation and have cortical strut grafts and a stem available that will safely bypass the end of the cement column and the previous cement restrictor

Introduction. Methoxyflurane can cause hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity at anaesthetic doses but has excellent analgesic properties and no nephrotoxic effects in patients without preexisting disease. Approved for use in the UK and Ireland in 2015, it is currently being used in emergency departments for analgesia during fracture reduction. During the Covid emergency, with theatre access severely restricted and many patients unwilling to use inhaled Nitrous oxide, Penthrox had the potential to provide adequate pain relief to aid frame removals and minor procedures in the clinic. Materials and Methods. Patients presenting to the Limb Reconstruction Unit Elective clinic and requiring frame removal or minor procedures were included in the study. Patients with renal, cardiac or hepatic disease, history of sensitivity to fluorinated anaesthetic agents and those on any nephrotoxic or enzyme inducing drugs were excluded. Verbal consent was obtained, the risks and benefits explained and the procedure was done in a side room in the clinic. Besides patient and procedure details, the Visual Analog Score and Richmond Agitation Scale was noted and patient's satisfaction documented. The results were presented as numbers, means and averages. Results. A total of 39 patients were included in the study of which 17 had Ilizarov frames removed, 10 had Hexapod Removals, 9 had heel rings removed and 3 others had an ex fix removed. Eleven patients required/ requested extra pain relief in the form of oral analgesia. All patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the experience. One patient had a wire jam during removal and required a GA for removal. Conclusions. Patient satisfaction was very high (>95%) with good results and allowed frame removals and minor procedures to be done in the clinic during the Covid pandemic. It also cut expenses and has potential for regular future use

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem. Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. Forty-two loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines. More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. Eighty-six percent of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however, complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4 cm. Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem. Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. 42 loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines. More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. 86% of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however, complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4cm. Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis