Aim. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are severe complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Up to now, a gold standard in the diagnostics of PJI is missing. Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are secreted by all types of cells and play a key role in immune response in presence of infection (1). In this prospective study, the diagnostic accuracy of sEVs in the synovial fluid to detect PJI of knee, hip and shoulder joints was investigated. We hypothesized increased surface markers of sEVs in PJI compared to aseptic complications (e.g. implant loosening, stress shielding related pain). Method. Synovial fluid from 48 patients with painful arthroplasty was examined. The distinction between aseptic and infectious cases was made on the basis of the 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection (2). 35 (72,9%) probands assigned to aseptic and 13 patients (27,1%) to PJI group. Immuno-fluorescence flow cytometry served to document the concentrations of CD9, CD63, CD66b, CD82 and HLA-DR on sEVs. Results. The concentration of CD9 surface marker on sEVs in synovial fluid was significantly lower (p=0.002) in PJI group than in aseptic group. In contrast, the levels of CD82 on sEVs in synovial fluid was significantly higher (p<0.0001) in the PJI group than in aseptic group. The concentrations of CD63, CD66b and HLA-DR on sEVs in synovial fluid did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (CD63: p=0.372; CD66b: p=0.634; HLA-DR: p=0.558). Conclusions. Overall, the significance of sEVs in the diagnostics of PJI is not well enough understood and the subject of current research and scientific discussion. Our data suggest, that CD82 and CD9 on sEVs in synovial fluid are promising biomarkers to differentiate between PJI and aseptic complications

The incidence of PJI in knee replacements is 2.8% and slightly lower with hip replacement surgery. PJI make up 15% (or even more) of knee revisions. To combat PJI, antibiotic laden bone cement has been used for many decades, but antibiotic stewardship dictates more prudent management of antimicrobials. Projected increase in infection rate, due to increased surgery and latent infection to be almost 5-fold up to 2035.

Biofilm is a complex structure of bacteria and polysaccharide matrix and, is recognised as a major component in PJI and other orthopaedic infections.

Biofilm is responsible for high incidence of resistance to antimicrobials and ineffective host immune response.

The treatment of orthopedic implant infections is often difficult and complex, although the chances of successful treatment with a properly selected diagnostic, surgical and antibiotic treatment protocol have recently increased significantly. Surgical treatment is a key factor in the treatment of infections of orthopedic implants, and any errors in this respect often lead to worse clinical outcomes.

Surgical errors. The most important and frequent surgical errors include:

- conservative treatment of periprosthetic infections with antibiotics alone: successful treatment requires adequate surgical procedure combined with long-term antimicrobial Th that is active against biofilm microorganism. Without adequate surgical procedure just the suppression of symptoms is usually achieved, rather than eradication of the infection.

We present illustrative cases with each common surcical error combined with proper solution.

Treatment of PJI is a demanding procedure, the goal is a long-term pain-free functional joint, that can be achieved by eradication of the infection. For a successful clinical outcome an appropriate diagnostic, surgical and antimicrobial procedure for the individual patient has to be selected.

The use of a cemented implant instead of a spacer has been proposed due to the improved function in comparison with a spacer. Unfortunately the removal of a conventional cemented stem can be challenging. The use of a short cemented stem can overcome this problem.

Between July 2011 and May 2013, 10 infected hips were treated with a short cemented stem as a spacer. The infected implants were cemented in 6 cases and cementless in 4 cases. Mean time from index operation was 3 years (range 0 to 8 years). It was the first treatment for infection in all cases. Antibiotic loaded cement and an all-poly cup was used in all cases. The bugs were staph aureus and staph epidermidis in most cases. A Friendly short cemented stem with specific cement restrictor and standard cementing tecnique was used in all cases. This stem has been successfully tested in over 200 patients and approved by TUV to be released on the marked.

In all cases, the infection was successfully cured with antibiotics for a period ranging from 3 to 5 months. 2 patients were revised after the infection was cured for recurrent dislocation. No recurrent infection was found at the latest follow up.

One stage revision is gaining in popularity for the decreased morbidity and better quality of life of the patients. Weak points of one-stage revision are slightly inferior results in terms of eradication of the infection and the fact that it can be done only with cemented implants. Cemented implants show inferior durability than cementless implants and are difficult to remove if revision is needed. The use of a short cemented stem can couple the advantages of one stage revision and the fact that it is easily removed if this is needed for various reasons (aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation and periprosthetic fracture). Contraindications to this technique are severe bone loss in the acetabulum or in the proximal femur.

Introduction

PJI is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. In this study, we explore the efficacy of a bacteriophage-derived lysin, PlySs2, against in-vitro biofilm on titanium implant surfaces and in an acute in-vivo murine debridement antibiotic implant retention (DAIR) model of PJI.

Introduction

There is no literature regarding the risk of a patient developing PJI after primary TKA if the patient has previously experienced PJI of a TKA or THA in another joint. The goal of this study was to compare the risk of PJI of primary TKA in this patient population compared to matched controls.

Purpose. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection is widely used for symptomatic relief of knee osteoarthritis. However, if pain is not improved which consequences a total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is a potential risk of post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of preoperative intra-articular corticosteroid injection increases the risk of PJI and to investigate a time frame in which the risk of subsequent infection is significantly increased. Methods. A systematic search was performed in PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were original studies investigating the rate of PJI in patients receiving pre-operative intra-articular corticosteroid injection compared to controls. Results. A total of 380 unique articles were screened. Six studies met the inclusion criteria with 255,627 patients in total. Overall, no statistical significance was observed in the intra-articular infection rate in corticosteroid compared to controls groups. However, intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 3 months prior to TKA were associated with a significantly increased risk of infection (OR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.37–1.67, p < 0.01); this was not observed in the 6-month period (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.80–1.39, p = 0.72). Conclusions. Performing an intra-articular corticosteroid injection within 3 months prior to TKA is associated with a significantly increased risk of PJI. The current evidence supports the safe use of intra-articular corticosteroid injection more than 6 months before TKA. However, additional studies are needed to clarify the risk of PJI after TKA implantation between 3 and 6 months after the last corticoid injection

Aims. Although low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with disinfectants has been shown to effectively eliminate portions of biofilm in vitro, its efficacy in vivo remains uncertain. Our objective was to assess the antibiofilm potential and safety of LIPUS combined with 0.35% povidone-iodine (PI) in a rat debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A total of 56 male Sprague-Dawley rats were established in acute PJI models by intra-articular injection of bacteria. The rats were divided into four groups: a Control group, a 0.35% PI group, a LIPUS and saline group, and a LIPUS and 0.35% PI group. All rats underwent DAIR, except for Control, which underwent a sham procedure. General status, serum biochemical markers, weightbearing analysis, radiographs, micro-CT analysis, scanning electron microscopy of the prostheses, microbiological analysis, macroscope, and histopathology evaluation were performed 14 days after DAIR. Results. The group with LIPUS and 0.35% PI exhibited decreased levels of serum biochemical markers, improved weightbearing scores, reduced reactive bone changes, absence of viable bacteria, and decreased inflammation compared to the Control group. Despite the greater antibiofilm activity observed in the PI group compared to the LIPUS and saline group, none of the monotherapies were successful in preventing reactive bone changes or eliminating the infection. Conclusion. In the rat model of PJI treated with DAIR, LIPUS combined with 0.35% PI demonstrated stronger antibiofilm potential than monotherapy, without impairing any local soft-tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):332–341

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. This was a data linkage study using the New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC) and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), which collect data from all public and private hospitals in NSW, Australia. Patients who underwent a TKA or THA for OA between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2017 were included. The main outcome measures were 90-day incidence rates of hospital readmission for: revision arthroplasty for PJI as recorded in the AOANJRR; conservative definition of PJI, defined by T84.5, the PJI diagnosis code in the APDC; and extended definition of PJI, defined by the presence of either T84.5, or combinations of diagnosis and procedure code groups derived from recursive binary partitioning in the APDC. Results. The mean 90-day revision rate for infection was 0.1% (0.1% to 0.2%) for TKA and 0.3% (0.1% to 0.5%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates defined by T84.5 were 1.3% (1.1% to 1.7%) for TKA and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.3%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates using the extended definition were 1.9% (1.5% to 2.2%) and 1.5% (1.3% to 1.7%) following TKA and THA, respectively. Conclusion. When reporting the revision arthroplasty for infection, the AOANJRR substantially underestimates the rate of PJI at 90 days. Using combinations of infection codes and PJI-related surgical procedure codes in linked hospital administrative databases could be an alternative way to monitor PJI rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1060–1066

Prophylactic antibiotics are important in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty. Their effectiveness depends on the choice of antibiotic and the optimum timing of their administration, to ensure adequate tissue concentrations. Cephalosporins are typically used, but an increasing number of resistant organisms are causing PJI, leading to the additional use of vancomycin. There are difficulties, however, with the systemic administration of vancomycin including its optimal timing, due to the need for prolonged administration, and potential adverse reactions. Intraosseous regional administration distal to a tourniquet is an alternative and attractive mode of delivery due to the ease of obtaining intraosseous access. Many authors have reported the effectiveness of intraosseous prophylaxis in achieving higher concentrations of antibiotic in the tissues compared with intravenous administration, providing equal or enhanced prophylaxis while minimizing adverse effects. This annotation describes the technique of intraosseous administration of antibiotics and summarizes the relevant clinical literature to date. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1135–1139

Aims. The optimum type of antibiotics and their administration route for treating Gram-negative (GN) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remain controversial. This study aimed to determine the GN bacterial species and antibacterial resistance rates related to clinical GN-PJI, and to determine the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) antibiotic injection after one-stage revision in a GN pathogen-induced PJI rat model of total knee arthroplasty. Methods. A total of 36 consecutive PJI patients who had been infected with GN bacteria between February 2015 and December 2021 were retrospectively recruited in order to analyze the GN bacterial species involvement and antibacterial resistance rates. Antibiotic susceptibility assays of the GN bacterial species were performed to screen for the most sensitive antibiotic, which was then used to treat the most common GN pathogen-induced PJI rat model. The rats were randomized either to a PJI control group or to three meropenem groups (intraperitoneal (IP), IA, and IP + IA groups). After two weeks of treatment, infection control level, the side effects, and the volume of antibiotic use were evaluated. Results. Escherichia coli was the most common pathogen in GN-PJI, and meropenem was the most sensitive antibiotic. Serum inflammatory markers, weightbearing activity, and Rissing score were significantly improved by meropenem, especially in the IA and IP + IA groups ( p < 0.05). Meropenem in the IA group eradicated E. coli from soft-tissue, bone, and prosthetic surfaces, with the same effect as in the IP + IA group. Radiological results revealed that IA and IP + IA meropenem were effective at relieving bone damage. Haematoxylin and eosin staining also showed that IA and IP + IA meropenem improved synovial inflammation and bone destruction. No pathological changes in the main organs or abnormal serum markers were observed in any of the meropenem-treated rats. The IA group required the lowest amount of meropenem, followed by the IP and IP + IA groups. Conclusion. IA-only meropenem with a two-week treatment course was effective and safe for PJI control following one-stage revision in a rat model, with less meropenem use. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(10):546–558

Aims. Accurate diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a significant challenge for hip surgeons. Preoperative diagnosis is not always easy to establish, making the intraoperative decision-making process crucial in deciding between one- and two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Calprotectin is a promising point-of-care novel biomarker that has displayed high accuracy in detecting PJI. We aimed to evaluate the utility of intraoperative calprotectin lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) in THA patients with suspected chronic PJI. Methods. The study included 48 THAs in 48 patients with a clinical suspicion of PJI, but who did not meet European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) PJI criteria preoperatively, out of 105 patients undergoing revision THA at our institution for possible PJI between November 2020 and December 2022. Intraoperatively, synovial fluid calprotectin was measured with LFI. Cases with calprotectin levels ≥ 50 mg/l were considered infected and treated with two-stage revision THA; in negative cases, one-stage revision was performed. At least five tissue cultures were obtained; the implants removed were sent for sonication. Results. Calprotectin was positive (≥ 50 mg/l) in 27 cases; out of these, 25 had positive tissue cultures and/or sonication. Calprotectin was negative in 21 cases. There was one false negative case, which had positive tissue cultures. Calprotectin showed an area under the curve of 0.917, sensitivity of 96.2%, specificity of 90.9%, positive predictive value of 92.6%, negative predictive value of 95.2%, positive likelihood ratio of 10.6, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. Overall, 45/48 patients were correctly diagnosed and treated by our algorithm, which included intraoperative calprotectin measurement. This yielded a 93.8% concordance with postoperatively assessed EBJIS criteria. Conclusion. Calprotectin can be a valuable tool in facilitating the intraoperative decision-making process for cases in which chronic PJI is suspected and diagnosis cannot be established preoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):118–124

Aims. We aimed to evaluate the utility of . 68. Ga-citrate positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in the differentiation of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic loosening (AL), and compare it with . 99m. Tc-methylene bisphosphonates (. 99m. Tc-MDP) bone scan. Methods. We studied 39 patients with suspected PJI or AL. These patients underwent . 68. Ga-citrate PET/CT, . 99m. Tc-MDP three-phase bone scan and single-photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT. PET/CT was performed at ten minutes and 60 minutes after injection, respectively. Images were evaluated by three nuclear medicine doctors based on: 1) visual analysis of the three methods based on tracer uptake model, and PET images attenuation-corrected with CT and those not attenuation-corrected with CT were analyzed, respectively; and 2) semi-quantitative analysis of PET/CT: maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of lesions, SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal bone, and SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal muscle. The final diagnosis was based on the clinical and intraoperative findings, and histopathological and microbiological examinations. Results. Overall, 23 and 16 patients were diagnosed with PJI and AL, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of three-phase bone scan and SPECT/CT were 100% and 62.5%, 82.6%, and 100%, respectively. Attenuation correction (AC) at 60 minutes and non-AC at 60 minutes of PET/CT had the same highest sensitivity and specificity (91.3% and 100%), and AC at 60 minutes combined with SPECT/CT could improve the diagnostic efficiency (sensitivity = 95.7%). Diagnostic efficacy of the SUVmax was low (area under the curve (AUC) of ten minutes and 60 minutes was 0.814 and 0.806, respectively), and SUVmax of the lesion/SUVmean of the normal bone at 60 minutes was the best semi-quantitative parameter (AUC = 0.969). Conclusion. 68. Ga-citrate showed the potential to differentiate PJI from AL, and visual analysis based on uptake pattern of tracer was reliable. The visual analysis method of AC at 60 minutes, combined with . 99m. Tc-MDP SPECT/CT, could improve the sensitivity from 91.3% to 95.7%. In addition, a major limitation of our study was that it had a limited sample size, and more detailed studies with a larger sample size are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):398–408

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429

Aims. In cases of severe periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, salvage procedures such as knee arthrodesis (KA) or above-knee amputation (AKA) must be considered. As both treatments result in limitations in quality of life (QoL), we aimed to compare outcomes and factors influencing complication rates, mortality, and mobility. Methods. Patients with PJI of the knee and subsequent KA or AKA between June 2011 and May 2021 were included. Demographic data, comorbidities, and patient history were analyzed. Functional outcomes and QoL were prospectively assessed in both groups with additional treatment-specific scores after AKA. Outcomes, complications, and mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 98 patients were included, 52 treated with arthrodesis and 47 with AKA. The mean number of revision surgeries between primary arthroplasty and arthrodesis or AKA was 7.85 (SD 5.39). Mean follow-up was 77.7 months (SD 30.9), with a minimum follow-up of two years. Complications requiring further revision surgery occurred in 11.5% of patients after arthrodesis and in 37.0% of AKA patients. Positive intraoperative tissue cultures obtained during AKA was significantly associated with the risk of further surgical revision. Two-year mortality rate of arthrodesis was significantly lower compared to AKA (3.8% vs 28.3%), with age as an independent risk factor in the AKA group. Functional outcomes and QoL were better after arthrodesis compared to AKA. Neuropathic pain was reported by 19 patients after AKA, and only 45.7% of patients were fitted or were intended to be fitted with a prosthesis. One-year infection-free survival after arthrodesis was 88.5%, compared to 78.5% after AKA. Conclusion. Above-knee amputation in PJI results in high complication and mortality rates and poorer functional outcome compared to arthrodesis. Mortality rates after AKA depend on patient age and mobility, with most patients not able to be fitted with a prosthesis. Therefore, arthrodesis should be preferred whenever possible if salvage procedures are indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):669–679

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims. The Vantage Total Ankle System is a fourth-generation low-profile fixed-bearing implant that has been available since 2016. We aimed to describe our early experience with this implant. Methods. This is a single-centre retrospective review of patients who underwent primary total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) with a Vantage implant between November 2017 and February 2020, with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. Four surgeons contributed patients. The primary outcome was reoperation and revision rate of the Vantage implant at two years. Secondary outcomes included radiological alignment, peri-implant complications, and pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes. Results. There were 168 patients (171 ankles) included with a mean follow-up of 2.81 years (2 to 4.6) and mean age of 63.0 years (SD 9.4). Of the ten ankles with implant failure (5.8%), six had loosening of the tibial component. In the remaining four failed implants, one was due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), one was due to loosening of the talar component, and two were due to loosening of both the tibial and talar components. Seven patients underwent reoperation: irrigation and debridement for superficial infection (n = 4); bone grafting for cysts (n = 2); and open reduction internal fixation (n = 1). Asymptomatic peri-implant lucency/subsidence occurred in 20.1% of ankles, with the majority involving the tibial component (n = 25). There were statistically significant improvements in PROMs in all domains. Conclusion. Short-term results of this implant demonstrate early survival comparable to the reported survivorship of similar low-profile, non-stemmed implants. Radiological lucency occurred more commonly at the tibial component, and revisions occurred primarily due to loosening of the tibial component. Further research is needed to evaluate longer-term survivorship. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1099–1107