Introduction. Infection after total hip arthroplasty is a severe complication. Controversies still exist as to the use of cemented or uncemented implants in the revision of infected THAs. Based on the data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) we have studied this topic. Material and Methods. During the period 2002–2008 45.724 primary THAs were reported to NAR. Out of these 459 were revised due to infection (1,0%). The survival of the revisions with uncemented prostheses were compared to revisions with cemented prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement and to cemented prostheses with plain cement. Only prostheses with the same fixation both in acetabulum and in femur were included in the study. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks were calculated with adjustments for differences among groups in gender, type of surgical procedure, type of prosthesis, and age at revision. Results. 92 (23%) of all the revisions were performed with uncemented prostheses, 286 (71%) with cemented prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement, and 25 (6%) with plain cement. Compared to uncemented prostheses and with all reasons for revision as endpoint in the Cox-analyses, prostheses fixed with antibiotic loaded cement had 3.0 (1.4–6.3) times increased risk for re-revision (p=0.004) and prostheses with plain cement 1.9 (0.4–9.3) times increased risk (p=0.44). With infection as endpoint, prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement had 2.8 (1.2–6.4) times increased risk for re-revision (p=0.02) and prostheses with plain cement 2.6 (0.5–13.7) times increased (p=0.26). 77% of the re-revisions (48 of 60) were performed due to infection. Conclusion. Data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry indicate that uncemented prostheses should be used in the revision of infected total arthroplasties

Aims. Patients receiving cemented hemiarthroplasties after hip fracture have a significant risk of deep surgical site infection (SSI). Standard UK practice to minimize the risk of SSI includes the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement with no consensus regarding type, dose, or antibiotic content of the cement. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of high dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement in comparison to low dose single antibiotic-loaded cement in patients 60 years and over receiving a cemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture. Methods. The WHiTE 8 Copal Or Palacos Antibiotic Loaded bone cement trial (WHiTE 8 COPAL) is a multicentre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. The pragmatic study will be embedded in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE) (ISRCTN 63982700). Participants, including those that lack capacity, will be allocated on a 1:1 basis stratified by recruitment centre to either a low dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement or a high dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement. The primary analysis will compare the differences in deep SSI rate as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 90 days of surgery via medical record review and patient self-reported questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include UK Core Outcome Set for hip fractures, complications, rate of antibiotic prescription, resistance patterns of deep SSI, and resource use (more specifically, cost-effectiveness) up to four months post-randomization. A minimum of 4,920 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect an absolute difference of 1.5% in the rate of deep SSI at 90 days for the expected 3% deep SSI rate in the control group. Conclusion. The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between low dose single and high dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement, which will inform policy and practice guidelines such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management of hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):72–78

Aims. A fracture of the hip is the most common serious orthopaedic injury, and surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most significant complications, resulting in increased mortality, prolonged hospital stay and often the need for further surgery. Our aim was to determine whether high dose dual antibiotic impregnated bone cement decreases the rate of infection. Patients and Methods. A quasi-randomised study of 848 patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip was conducted in one large teaching hospital on two sites. All were treated with a hemiarthroplasty. A total of 448 patients received low dose single-antibiotic impregnated cement (control group) and 400 patients received high dose dual-antibiotic impregnated cement (intervention group). The primary outcome measure was deep SSI at one year after surgery. Results. The rate of deep SSI was 3.5% in the control group and 1.1% in the intervention group (p = 0.041; logistic regression adjusting for age and gender). The overall rate of non-infective surgical complications did not differ between the two groups (unadjusted chi-squared test; p > 0.999). Conclusion. The use of high dose dual-antibiotic impregnated cement in these patients significantly reduces the rate of SSI compared with standard low dose single antibiotic loaded bone cement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1534–1541