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. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

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.

Introduction. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute prosthetic hip infection is a popular low morbidity option despite less than optimal success rates. We theorized that the delay between DAIR and explantation in failed cases may complicate eradication due to biofilm maturation and entrenchment of bacteria in periprosthetic bone. We ask, what are the results of two-stage reimplantation after a failed DAIR versus an initial two-stage procedure?. Methods. 114 patients were treated with 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection. 65 were treated initially with a 2-stage exchange, while 49 underwent an antecedent DAIR prior to a 2-stage exchange. Patients were classified according to MSIS host criteria. Failure was defined as return to the OR for infection, a draining sinus, or systemic infection. Results. Treatment failure occurred in 42.9% (21 of 49) of patients treated with an antecedent DAIR. In contrast, treatment failure occurred in only 12.3% (8 of 65) of initial 2-stage procedures (p< 0.001). Relative Risk of return to the OR after a 2-stage reimplantation with an antecedent DAIR compared to initial resection was 4.52 (95% CI 1.71, 11.9). MSIS host grading was similar between groups and did not influence the rate of failure. The DAIR cohort had increased hospitalization length and greater number of operative procedures (p< 0.001). Conclusion. We have shown that if irrigation and debridement fails to treat acute prosthetic hip infection, subsequent attempts at two-stage reimplantation may be compromised. Additionally, in the antecedent DAIR group, the average number of infection-related procedures (5) was nearly twice that of those initially resected (2.7). This by nature implies a significantly greater burden to the patient and cost to the healthcare system

Hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating complication following joint replacement surgery, with significant impact on patients and healthcare systems. The INFection ORthopaedic Management: Evidence into Practice (INFORM:EP) study, builds upon the 6-year INFORM programme by developing evidence-based guidelines for the identification and management of hip PJI.

A panel of 21 expert stakeholders collaborated to develop best practice guidelines based on evidence from INFORM \[1\]. An expert consensus process was used to refine guidelines using RAND/UCLA criteria. The guidelines were then implemented over a 12-month period through a Learning Collaborative of 24 healthcare professionals from 12 orthopaedic centres in England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 members of the collaborative and findings used to inform the development of an implementation support toolkit. Patient and public involvement contextualised the implementation of the guidelines. The study is registered with the ISCRTN (34710385).

The INFORM guidelines, structured around the stages of PJI management, were largely supported by surgeons, although barriers included limited awareness among non-surgical team members, lack of job planning for multidisciplinary teams, and challenges in ensuring timely referrals from primary care. Psychological support for patients was identified as a critical gap. Advanced Nurse Practitioners and multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordinators were seen as potential bridges to address these knowledge gaps. The guidelines were also viewed as a useful tool for service development.

This study presents the first evidence-based guidelines for hip PJI management, offering a comprehensive approach to prevention, treatment, and postoperative care. Effective implementation is crucial, involving wider dissemination amongst primary and community care, as well as non-specialist treatment centres. Further resources are needed to ensure job planning for MDTs and psychological support for patients. Overall, this study lays the foundation for improved PJI management, benefiting patients and healthcare systems.

Aims

Current diagnostic tools are not always able to effectively identify periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Recent studies suggest that circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) undergo changes under pathological conditions such as infection. The aim of this study was to analyze miRNA expression in hip arthroplasty PJI patients.

Aims. Leucocyte esterase (LE) has been shown to be an accurate marker of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and has been proposed as an alternative to frozen section (FS) histology for intraoperative diagnosis. In this study, the intraoperative assessment of LE was compared with FS histology for the diagnosis of prosthetic hip infection. Patients and Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) between June 2015 and December 2017 were included in the study. There were 56 men and 63 women with a mean age of 66.2 years (27 to 88). Synovial fluid was collected before arthrotomy for the assessment of LE using enzymatic colourimetric strips. Between five and six samples were stained with haematoxylin and eosin for FS histology, and considered suggestive of infection when at least five polymorphonuclear leucocytes were found in five high-power fields. Results. The sensitivity and specificity of the LE assay were 100% and 93.8%, respectively; the positive (PPV) and the negative (NPV) predictive values were 79.3% and 100%, respectively. The mean time between the collection of the sample and the result being known was 20.1 minutes (. sd. 4.4). The sensitivity and specificity of FS histology were 78.3% and 96.9%, respectively; the PPV and the NPV were 85.7% and 94.9%, respectively. The mean time between the collection of the sample and the result being known was 27.2 minutes (. sd. 6.9). Conclusion. The sensitivity of LE assay was higher, with similar specificity and diagnostic accuracy, compared with FS histology. The faster turnaround time, its ease of use, and low costs make LE assay a valuable alternative to FS histology. We now use it routinely for the intraoperative diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:372–377

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.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a well-established technique for amplification and sequencing of DNA and has recently gained much attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of NGS in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

In this prospective study samples were collected from 78 revision total hip arthroplasties. Synovial fluid, deep tissue and swabs were obtained at the time of surgery and shipped to the laboratory for NGS analysis. Deep tissue specimens were also sent to the institutional lab for culture. PJI was diagnosed using the Musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) definition of PJI.

Thirty-four revisions were considered infected; culture was positive in 25 of these (25/34, 73.5%), while NGS was positive in 26 (26/34, 76.4%). Among the positive cultures, complete concordance between NGS and culture in 21 cases (21/25, 84.0%). 4 cases were discordant. Among these cases, 3 cases were culture-positive and NGS-negative, while 1 was both positive on NGS and culture for disparate organisms. Among the 9 cases of culture-negative PJI(CN-PJI), NGS was able to identify an organism in 4 cases (4/9, 44.4%). The remaining 5 cases were negative on both NGS and culture (5/9, 55.6%). Forty-four revisions were considered to be aseptic; NGS exclusively identified microbes in 7 of 44 “aseptic” revisions (15.9%) and culture exclusively isolated an organism in 3 of 44 cases (6.8%). Both NGS and culture were positive in 1 of case however the result was discordant. The remaining cases (33/44, 75.0%) were both NGS and culture negative. NGS detected several organisms in most positive samples, with a greater number of organisms detected in aseptic compared to septic cases (7 vs. 3.7, respectively).

NGS may be a promising technique for identifying the infecting organism in PJI. Our findings suggest that some cases of PJI may be polymicrobial that escape detection using conventional culture.

Introduction

Single-stage resection and reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of recent interest, yet outcomes may be skewed by selected populations with healthier patients and less virulent organisms. This study quantified the effectiveness of a contemporary, evidence-based and standardized two-stage treatment protocol in patients with THA PJI including chronically infected, poor hosts.

Introduction. Native hip joint infection can result in hip arthrosis as a complication requiring the need for subsequent arthroplasty. There is little evidence to support single or staged THA. We present the results of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) following hip joint sepsis in our institution. Methods. Patients receiving a THA following previous hip joint sepsis between 2003 and 2015 were identified from the operative records database. Further clinical information was collected from the medical records, including timing of infection and surgery, as well as culture results. Functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score, OHS) and patient satisfaction scores (PSS) were recorded. Results. There were 21 males and 12 females with a mean age of 54 (21–82) at a mean follow up of 6.4 years (2–12) following definitive implantation. Thirteen patients underwent a single stage THA and 20 patients had a 2 stage procedure, two of whom required a repeat 1. st. stage prior to implantation. The mean time from native hip infection to operation was 17.2 years (3–59). At implantation, positive cultures were present in 19 cases, 13 of which were S. aureus. Two patients required revision due to a periprosthetic fracture and one patient required debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR). Therefore, the implant survivorship was 94% and infection rate was 3% at 6.4 years. Discussion. Both single and staged arthroplasty provide good results in patients who have developed septic arthritis. THA as a single stage was performed predominately in patients with a long remission between their initial infection and presentation. Positive culture at implantation does not confer a bad outcome as long as a thorough debridement is performed as routine in this patient group. Patient comorbidities are an important factor as both cases requiring reoperation were in IV drug users with Hepatitis C

We report the outcome at ten to 15 years of two-stage revision for hip infection in 99 patients using the Prostalac articulated hip spacer system. All the patients were contacted to determine their current functional and infection status using the Oxford-12, Short form-12, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index questionnaires. A total of 11 of the 99 patients had a further infection, of whom seven responded to repeat surgery with no further sequelae. The mean interval between the stages was five months (1 to 36). We were able to review 48 living patients, with a mean age of 72 years (46 to 86), 34 (71%) of whom provided health-related quality-of-life outcome scores. The mean follow-up was 12 years (10 to 15). The long-term success rate was 89% and with additional surgery this rose to 96%. The mean global Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index score was 80.6 (. sd. 18.3). The mean Oxford-12 score was 74.0 (. sd. 22.3), and the mean Short form-12 score was 53.1 (. sd. 9.4) (mental) and 33.5 (. sd. 13.5) (physical). The mean satisfaction score was 90.5 (. sd. 15.3). Two-stage revision for hip infection using a Prostalac interim spacer offers a predictable and lasting solution for patients with this difficult problem

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.

A two-stage procedure was carried out on 57 patients with confirmed infection in a hip replacement. Allograft bone was used in the second stage. Pathogenic organisms were identified in all patients. In stage 1, the prosthesis was removed together with infected tissue. Antibiotics were added to customised cement beads. Systemic antibiotics were not used. At the second stage, 45 of the patients had either acetabular impaction grafting, femoral impaction grafting or a combination; 12 had a massive allograft.

Eight patients suffered recurrent infection (14%), in six with the original infecting organism. The risk factors for re-infection were multiple previous procedures and highly resistant organisms. We believe that systemic antibiotic therapy should be considered for these patients. Allograft bone is shown to be a useful adjunct in most infected hip replacements with considerable loss of bone stock.

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers. This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA. There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA. Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients

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

Previous reports on the outcomes of isolated head and liner exchange in revision total hip arthroplasty have found high rates of instability following these surgeries. Most reports have studied constructs using ≤28mm femoral heads. The purpose of this study was to determine if modern techniques with the use of larger head sizes can improve the rate of instability after head and liner exchange. We identified 138 hips in 132 patients who underwent isolated head and liner exchange for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (57%), acute infection (27%), metallosis (13%), or other (2%). All patients underwent revision with either 32mm (23%), 36mm (62%), or 40mm (15%) diameter heads. Crosslinked polyethylene was used in all revisions. Lipped and/or offset liners were used in 104 (75%) hips. Average follow up was 3.5 (1.0–9.1) years. Statistical analyses were performed with significance set at p<0.05. Revision-free survivorship for any cause was 94.6% and for aseptic causes was 98.2% at 5 years. 11 (8%) hips experienced a complication with 7 (5%) hips requiring additional revision surgery. Following revision, 4 (3%) hips experienced dislocation, 5 (4%) hips experienced infection, and 1 (1%) hip was revised for trunnionosis. No demographic or surgical factors significantly affected outcomes. Our study shows that isolated head and liner exchange using large femoral heads and modern liners provides for better stability than previous reports. The most common complication was infection. We did not identify specific patient, surgical or implant factors that reduced the risk of instability or other complication

After a hip fracture, infections are common, but signs of infection resemble those of systemic inflammatory response to trauma and surgery, and conventional infection markers lack specificity. Plasma-calprotectin, a novel marker of neutrophil activation, has shown potential as an infection marker in ER and ICU settings. To investigate if plasma-calprotectin is superior compared to conventional infection biomarkers after hip fracture. Prospective cohort study of hip fracture patients admitted to our department. Calprotectin, procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and white blood cell (WBC) count were measured in blood plasma upon admission and on day 3 post-surgery. Patients with infection (pneumonia, UTI, sepsis, SSI, other soft tissue infections) pre- or post-surgery were compared to a control group without infection within 30 days. Statistics: Wilcoxon rank-sum test, medians with interquartile range, and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals. Pilot study comprises calprotectin obtained at least once for 60 patients at admission and 48 on day 3. Mean age 84 years (SD 8.4), 65% women. 9/60 patients (23%) were admitted with infections. They had higher levels of CRP (median 111 [73-149]) and PCT (0.35 [0.18–0.86]) compared to the control group (29 [16-64], p=0.037; 0.10 [0.07–0.17], p=0.007). Calprotectin (2.67 vs 2.51) and WBC (12.2 vs 9.3) did not differ significantly. AUC was highest for PCT (0.79 [CI 0.60–0.97]), followed by CRP (0.71 [0.46–0.96]), WBC (0.60 [0.35–0.84]), and calprotectin (0.58, [0.33–0.83]). Day 3, 6/48 (13%) had infections, without significant differences between groups in any marker. The median levels were: calprotectin 3.5 vs 3.1, CRP 172 vs 104, WBC 12 vs 9, PCT 0.16 vs 0.17. Calprotectin had highest AUC 0.68 (0.41–0.93, n.s.). AUC for WBC was 0.67 (0.31–1.00), CRP 0.66 (0.38–0.94), PCT 0.56 (0.29–0.82). Preliminary data show no significant associations with postoperative infection for any of the studied biomarkers. However, plasma-calprotectin might perform slightly better compared to conventional markers

Aims. Increasingly, patients with bilateral hip arthritis wish to undergo staged total hip arthroplasty (THA). With the rise in demand for arthroplasty, perioperative risk assessment and counselling is crucial for shared decision making. However, it is unknown if complications that occur after a unilateral hip arthroplasty predict complications following surgery of the contralateral hip. Patients and Methods. We used nationwide linked discharge data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project between 2005 and 2014 to analyze the incidence and recurrence of complications following the first- and second-stage operations in staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty (BTHAs). Complications included perioperative medical adverse events within 30 to 60 days, and infection and mechanical complications within one year. Conditional probabilities and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to determine whether experiencing a complication after the first stage of surgery increased the risk of developing the same complication after the second stage. Results. A total of 13 829 patients (5790 men and 8039 women) who underwent staged BTHAs were analyzed. The mean age at first operation was 62.9 years (14 to 95). For eight of the 12 outcomes evaluated, patients who experienced the outcome following the first arthroplasty had a significantly increased probability and odds of developing that same complication following the second arthroplasty, compared with those who did not experience the complication after the first surgery. This was true for digestive complications (OR 25.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.86 to 46.08; p < 0.001), urinary complications (OR 6.48, 95% CI 1.7 to 20.73; p = 0.01), haematoma (OR 12.17, 95% CI 4.55 to 31.14; p < 0.001), deep vein thrombosis (OR 4.82, 95% CI 2.34 to 9.65; p < 0.001), pulmonary embolism (OR 12.03, 95% CI 2.02 to 46.77; p = 0.01), deep hip infection (OR 534.21, 95% CI 314.96 to 909.25; p < 0.001), superficial hip infection (OR 1574.99, 95% CI 269.83 to 9291.81; p < 0.001), and mechanical malfunction (OR 117.49, 95% CI 91.55 to 150.34; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The occurrence of certain complications after unilateral THA is associated with an increased risk of the same complication occurring after staged arthroplasty of the contralateral hip. Patients who experience these complications after unilateral hip arthroplasty should be appropriately counselled regarding their risk profile prior to undergoing staged contralateral hip arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):77–83

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two institutions, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral cement in selected cases for septic hip revision surgery. Between February 2010 and September 2019, 89 patients with prosthetic hip infection underwent first or single stage procedures leaving the distal femoral cement in situ and performing a cement-in-cement revision. The mean patient age was 72.0 years (24–92). The median time from the last arthroplasty procedure was 29.0 months (1–294). 81 patients underwent revision using a cemented Exeter stem, 7 patients received an articulating spacer, and one patient underwent excision arthroplasty with the distal cement left in situ. Patients received clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean of 42.8 months (range 11.0–120.1 months). Oxford hip scores were collected from each institution's existing databases. 9 patients (10.1%) died within one year of surgery. No deaths were directly related to joint infection or the surgery. One patient was lost to follow up before one year. Of the remainder, 7 patients (8.9%) required further procedures for infection and were therefore considered to be treatment failures. 6 patients (7.6%) underwent planned second stage procedures with no recurrence of infection. 7 patients (8.9%) had further surgery for non-infective reasons. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of infection free survival at one year was 93.7% (95% CI 88.4 to 99.0%). No patients underwent revision for stem loosening. Oxford hip scores were available at over one year postoperatively for 51 patients with a mean score of 30.6, and a mean gain of 11.9. In our combined cohort of patients, cement-in-cement revision had an infection eradication rate of 91.1%. Patient selection is crucial, and the procedure can only be performed when there is a well-fixed cement mantle. However, when strict criteria are followed, this technique offers potential significant benefits to surgeons performing this challenging surgery, and more importantly the patients undergoing them