Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. Methods. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. Results. The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). Conclusion. DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464–471

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648

Abstract. Introduction. In general the life expectancy of population is improving. This is causing to increase case load of peri-prosthesis fractures after joint replacements. We present our results of peri-prosthesis fracture around hip managed by revision arthroplasty. Methods. A retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive patients of periprosthetic hip fracture treated with a revision arthroplasty at Major Trauma Centre between February 2021 and January 2022. Results. 12 male and 12 female patients, average age 78 years. 3 fractures around BHR prosthesis, 2 type A, 15 type B and 3 of type C (Vancouver). The surgery was done in an average 6 days after injury (range 1–14). 6 patients died in follow up, 1 patient contracted infection, 2 developed LLD and 1 patient had multiple dislocations. 6 patients had revision using endo-prosthesis. Advanced age with peri-prosthesis fracture has increased risk of mortality (average age 84.5 years). Conclusion. Endo-prosthesis replacement had higher risk of dislocation, infection and mortality. Overall patients do well after a revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip fracture. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601

There is sufficient evidence that specialised orthopaedic services, in the form of ‘hub’ or specialist centres, which undertake a high volume of workload in revision arthroplasty generate superior outcomes. The East Midlands South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) was set up in 2015 and is an example of a ‘hub and spoke’ network. The network has recently undergone adaptation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is paucity of data considering the impact of such adaptations in a post-pandemic era and on adherence to advice given. Two data sets were obtained from the EMSSON data base, pertaining to pre and post pandemic eras respectively. Datasets were analysed and compared for case volumes, proportion of overall arthroplasty volume discussed and adherence to agreed management plans. Dataset one included 107 cases, of these 99 cases were discussed (54 knees and 45 hips). This equates to 35% of total revision arthroplasty volume recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR), by units involved in the network. A change of plan was recommended in 45/99 cases (45%), of these 41 (93%) were adhered to. Dataset two included 99 cases, of these 98 were discussed (39 knees and 59 hips). This equates 68% of revision arthroplasty volume performed by the region according to NJR records. A change in plan was recommended in 20 cases (20.5%), all of which were adhered to. One case was referred to the ‘hub’ for surgery. Following the implementation of recent adaptations, the efficiency of the EMSSON network has significantly improved. A greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed on a weekly basis. Management plans for which adaptations are suggested have decreased, indicating an educational value of such networking practices. Adherence to agreed plans also showed improvement (p<0.03). These findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England's target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion. Changes made in light of the Covid-pandemic, are felt to have contributed significantly to the overall performance of regional networking and have been well received by consultants involved

Aims. Implant failure has become more common as the number of primary total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) performed has increased. Although revision arthroplasty has gained attention for functional preservation, the long-term results remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of revision TAA using a mobile-bearing prosthesis in a considerably large cohort; the risk factors for failure were also determined. Methods. This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 116 patients (117 ankles) who underwent revision TAA for failed primary TAA between July 2000 and March 2010. Survival analysis and risk factor assessment were performed, and clinical performance and patient satisfaction were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up. Results. The mean duration from initial revision TAA to last follow-up was 15.0 years (SD 3.0; 11.2 to 20.5). The cumulative survival rates of the revised ankles were 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74% to 88%), 74% (65% to 82%), and 70% (61% to 79%) at five, ten, and 15 years, respectively. Comorbidities prior to primary TAA, aseptic loosening, instability, or grafting of cysts were found to be the most common risk factors for secondary revision. The median value for preoperative pain, as assessed using the visual analogue scale, declined from 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 8) to 2 (IQR 0 to 5) (p < 0.001) and the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score improved from 43 (SD 17) preoperatively to 70 (SD 20) (p < 0.001) at last follow-up. Conclusion. Revision TAA offers acceptable survival rates after 15 years; it therefore offers a valuable option for treatment of implant failure in carefully selected cases. Although patient-reported outcomes improve substantially, the degree of improvement reported following primary TAA is not achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):46–52

Introduction. When ankle arthroplasty fails the options are revision to arthrodesis or revision to arthroplasty. We report early outcomes of revision procedures for failed total replacement. Methods. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data including post-operative complications, union, survivorship and PROMS scores to compare revision to arthrodesis and revision to arthroplasty. Results. 31 revision procedures (10 revision to arthrodesis and 21 revision to arthroplasty) were performed for failed primary ankle arthroplasty (30 patients) between January 2012 and June 2019. 23 males: 8 females, average age of 68. Indications for revisions were aseptic loosening (13), cysts/lysis (6), pain (5), periprosthetic infection (3), fracture (2), fibula erosion (1), polyethylene dislocation (1). Union rate following arthrodesis was 77.9% after primary revision procedure. Impaction bone grafting technique was utilised in seven patients with a union rate of 83%. Survivorship following revision to arthroplasty was 100% at two years; 87.5% at three years and 75% at four years Failed revision arthroplasty was revised to arthrodesis successfully. Median MOxFQ was 73.5 for the arthrodesis group versus 17 in the arthroplasty group (p=0.02). Median AOS was 87 for the arthrodesis group versus 12 for the arthroplasty group (p=0.04). Discussion. This study demonstrated the potential advantages in the short term of revision arthroplasty over conversion to arthrodesis with statistically significant improvements in MOxFQ and AOS within the first two years following revision

Background. Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the standard treatment for chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Accurate diagnosis of persistent infections at 2nd stage using established biomarkers and diagnostic criteria is of paramount importance. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of synovial calprotectin and alpha-defensin, and compare established diagnostic criteria from the International Consensus Meeting (ICM 2018) and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS 2021) to determine persistent PJI at the 2nd stage of a two-stage revision arthroplasty. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 97 patients who underwent 100 two-stage revisions (hip: 39, knee: 61). Synovial fluid samples were assessed for calprotectin and alpha-defensin levels. ICM 2018 and EBJIS 2021 were applied to all patients undergoing 2nd stage revision. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden Index were utilized to determine optimal cut-off values, and correlations between biomarkers were evaluated. The microbiological spectrum was analyzed at 2nd stage and re-revision surgery. Results. Calprotectin levels showed a sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 32.9%, and accuracy of 38.0% in predicting septic failure. Alpha-defensin showed sensitivity of 28.6%, specificity of 87.8%, and accuracy of 79.2%. Significant correlations included: calprotectin with PMN% (r = 0.471, p = 0.05) and alpha-defensin with WBC (r = 0.830, p < 0.01) in the successful cohort. For septic re-revisions, calprotectin and alpha-defensin were highly correlated (r = 0.969, p < 0.01). ICM correctly diagnosed persistent PJI in 26.7%, while EBJIS diagnosed 24.2%. The microbial spectrum shifted from gram-positive to gram-negative bacteria between reimplantation and re-revision surgeries. Conclusion. Synovial calprotectin and alpha-defensin demonstrated limited accuracy in ruling out persistent PJI at reimplantation. The low sensitivity of current diagnostic criteria, combined with the observed shift in microbial spectrum, underscores the challenges in diagnosing persistent PJI during 2nd stage of a two-stage revisions arthroplasty

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Abstract. Background. The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising and this is owed to the increased longevity that today's TKA implants allow for, as well as an aging population. These injuries are significant as they are related to increased morbidity and mortality. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all periprosthetic fractures around a TKA that presented to our NHS Trust between 2011 to 2020. Medical records were reviewed. Treatment, complications and mortality were noted. Results. 37 patients (34 females) with an average age of 84 (range 65–99) met the inclusion criteria for this study. 17 patients (45.9%) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), eight patients (21.6%) underwent revision arthroplasty to a distal femoral replacement (DFR) and 12 patients (32.4%) were treated non-operatively. 10 (58.8%) of the 17 patients that were treated with ORIF were discharged from hospital to a rehabilitation facility rather than their usual residence. In comparison, 3 (37.5%) of the patients that were treated with a DFR were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. one-year mortality rate in the ORIF group was 29.4 compared to 12.5% in those that had a DFR. Conclusion. Revision arthroplasty using a DFR should be considered in patients with periprosthetic fractures around a TKR, as it is associated with lower mortality rates and higher immediate post-operative function

Aims. Fungal periprosthetic joint infections (fPJIs) are rare complications, constituting only 1% of all PJIs. Neither a uniform definition for fPJI has been established, nor a standardized treatment regimen. Compared to bacterial PJI, there is little evidence for fPJI in the literature with divergent results. Hence, we implemented a novel treatment algorithm based on three-stage revision arthroplasty, with local and systemic antifungal therapy to optimize treatment for fPJI. Methods. From 2015 to 2018, a total of 18 patients with fPJI were included in a prospective, single-centre study (DKRS-ID 00020409). The diagnosis of PJI is based on the European Bone and Joint Infection Society definition of periprosthetic joint infections. The baseline parameters (age, sex, and BMI) and additional data (previous surgeries, pathogen spectrum, and Charlson Comorbidity Index) were recorded. A therapy protocol with three-stage revision, including a scheduled spacer exchange, was implemented. Systemic antifungal medication was administered throughout the entire treatment period and continued for six months after reimplantation. A minimum follow-up of 24 months was defined. Results. Eradication of infection was achieved in 16 out of 18 patients (88.8%), with a mean follow-up of 35 months (25 to 54). Mixed bacterial and fungal infections were present in seven cases (39%). The interval period, defined as the period of time from explantation to reimplantation, was 119 days (55 to 202). In five patients, a salvage procedure was performed (three cementless modular knee arthrodesis, and two Girdlestone procedures). Conclusion. Therapy for fPJI is complex, with low cure rates according to the literature. No uniform treatment recommendations presently exist for fPJI. Three-stage revision arthroplasty with prolonged systemic antifungal therapy showed promising results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):671–678

Sound management decisions are critical to outcomes in revision arthroplasty. Aiming to improve outcomes, revision networks facilitate speciality trained, high volume surgeons, share experience and best practice, contributing to decision making within and away from their base hospital. We have reported the early clinical experience of East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network (EMSON). In this paper we report beneficial clinical effects, both demonstrable and unquantifiable supporting the process. Using the UK HES database of revisions, performed before and after EMSON was established, (April 2011 – March 2018), data from EMSON hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in the same time-period. Primary outcome was re-revision surgery within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were re-revision, complications within first two years and median LOS. 57,621 RTHA and 33,828 RTKA procedures were involved with around 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%) respectively performed within EMSON. Re-revision THA rates, within 1 year, in EMSON were 7.3% and 6.0% with re-revision knee rates 11.6% and 7.4%, pre- and post-intervention. Re-revision rates in the rest England in the same periods were 7.4% to 6.8% for hips and 11.7% to 9.7% for knees. This constituted a significant improvement in 1-year re-revision rates for EMSON knees. (β = −0.072 (−0.133 to −0.01), p = 0.024). The reduction in hip re-revision did not reach statistical significance. Secondary outcomes showed a significant improvement for 1 and 2-year RTHA complication rates. Re-revision rates for RTKA and complication rates for RTHA improved significantly after the introduction of EMSON. Other outcomes studied also improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals. While anecdotal experience with networks is positive, the challenge in collating data to prove clinic benefit should not be underestimated. Beyond the formal process, additional communication, interaction, and support has immeasurable benefit in both elective and emergency scenarios

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

Aim. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication of total joint arthroplasty of hip (THA) or knee (TKA). Debridement, antibiotic treatment, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective treatment of early PJI. In the Netherlands, cefazolin resistance in early PJI after primary arthroplasty is low. Little is known about causative micro-organisms and resistance patterns in PJI after revision arthroplasty. No recommendations for empirical treatment are described in the current guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics of PJI after revision arthroplasty and to evaluate whether the used empirical treatment regimens are adequate, based on microbiology data. Method. In this retrospective study we included patients with early PJI after aseptic revision of THA or TKA, treated with DAIR between 2012 and 2020. Success rate was defined as implant retention and no persistent or recurrent infection during one year follow-up. Results. We identified 96 patients with PJI. PJI was most frequently caused by Staphylococcus spp. (n=73), Gram-negative bacilli (n=31) or Enterococcus spp. (n=13). Polymicrobial infection was diagnosed in 38 PJIs. Mismatches were present in 72 (75%) of the PJIs (95% CI: 0.66–0.84). Table 1 shows the number of mismatches per empirical treatment regimen. Figure 1 shows the responsible micro-organisms for the mismatches. Success rate of PJI treatment was significant reduced for patients with mismatching compared to matching empirical therapy: 62% vs. 95% respectively (OR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01–0.68, p=0.004). If vancomycin would have been the empirical treatment, mismatches would have been reduced to 31 (32%) (95% CI: 0.23–0.42). With vancomycin-ciprofloxacin combination therapy the mismatches would have been reduced to 1% (95% CI: −0.01–0.03). Conclusions. There is a high number of mismatches in empirical treatment in early PJI after revision arthroplasty, which have significant influence on the outcome. Based on our data cefazolin should not be recommended as empirical treatment for this specific group. Our data shows that review of local data is necessary to improve treatment strategies, that eventually might improve outcome. Besides changing Gram-positive coverage, a prospective study is needed to assess the benefits of broader spectrum empiric antimicrobial treatment taken into account toxicity and other side effects such as antimicrobial resistance. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Aim. Success rate of debridement, antimicrobial and implant retention (DAIR) in high suspicion of early PJI after primary arthroplasty is 70–80%. No studies have been performed focusing on outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty of the hip (THA) or knee (TKA). The aim of this study is to investigate the outcome of DAIR in suspected early PJI after revision THA or TKA and to identify risk factors for failure. Method. In this retrospective study, we identified early DAIRs after revision THA or TKA performed between January 2012 and August 2019. All patients received empirical antibiotics directly after the DAIR procedure. Antimicrobial treatment was adjusted to the tissue culture results. Success was defined as: 1) implant retention; 2) no repeated revision arthroplasty or supervised neglect after treatment; 3) no persistent or recurrent PJI after treatment and no administration of suppressive antimicrobial therapy; 4) survival of the patient. Infection free success was defined as: 1) no persistent or recurrent PJI after treatment; 2) no administration of suppressive antimicrobial therapy. Results. The overall success rate after one year of 100 cases with early DAIR after revision THA or TKA was 79% and infection free success rate was 85%. In PJI cases, empirical antimicrobial mismatch with causative micro-organisms was associated with lower success rate (70%) than non-mismatch (95%) (p=0.02). No patients from the non-PJI group failed after one year versus 13 failures within the PJI group. A consecutive DAIR within 90 days after the first DAIR was warranted in 24 cases. Only 4 of 20 PJI cases failed despite the consecutive DAIR. Conclusions. In high suspicion of early PJI after revision arthroplasty, DAIR is a good treatment option with comparable outcome with DAIR after primary arthroplasty. A consecutive DAIR should not be avoided when infection control fails within 90 days after the first DAIR to prevent explantation of the prosthesis. Antimicrobial mismatch is associated with failure and should be avoided

Aims. The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures. Methods. A total of 126 Vancouver type B fractures were analyzed from 2010 to 2019 in 11 associated centres' database (named TRON). We divided the patients into two Vancouver type B subtypes according to implant stability. Patient demographics and functional scores were assessed in the Vancouver type B subtypes. We estimated the mortality according to various patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (revision) groups in patients with unstable subtype. Results. The one-year mortality rate of the stable and unstable subtype of Vancouver type B was 9.4% and 16.4%. Patient demographic factors, including residential status and pre-injury mobility were associated with mortality. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and Revision in either Vancouver B subtype. Patients treated with revision had significantly higher Parker Mobility Score (PMS) values (5.48 vs 3.43; p = 0.00461) and a significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) values (1.06 vs 1.94; p = 0.0399) for pain than ORIF in the unstable subtype. Conclusion. Among patients with Vancouver type B fractures, frail patients, such as those with worse scores for residential status and pre-injury mobility, had a high mortality rate. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and those treated with revision. However, in the unstable subtype, the PMS and VAS values at the final follow-up examination were significantly better in patients who received revision. Based on postoperative activities of daily life, we therefore recommend evision in instances when either treatment option is feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):38–46

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results. Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion. There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):378–384

Aim. Perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI) is a common complication in noncardiac surgery, contributing to postoperative morbidity and mortality. We aimed to identify the risk for PMI in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to primary hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to non-PJI revision surgery. Methods. Patients undergoing primary/revision THA/TKA at a University Hospital who were eligible for the institutional PMI screening and response program were prospectively included. Revision arthroplasties were divided into 2 groups (PJI revision and non-PJI revision). PJI was defined according to the EBJIS criteria, and included DAIR, one-stage and two-stage revisions. Non-PJI revisions included partial and/or complete exchange of components. The primary endpoint was PMI, secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality within 120 days. Results. The study population included 673 patients (443 primary THA/TKA, 119 PJI revision, 111 Non-PJI revision) enrolled from 05/2014 to 06/2018. The median age in all groups was 75 years. In primary, non-PJI and PJI revision surgery, 39%, 41% and 50%, respectively were male. PMI occurred in 12% of patients with primary arthroplasty compared to 20% and 35% in non-PJI and PJI revision, respectively (p<0.001 overall), with PJI having a significantly elevated risk over non-PJI revisions (p=0.014). Conversely, in MACE (4% primary vs 9% non-PJI vs 12% PJI, p=0.002) an all-cause mortality (2% primary vs 4% non-PJI vs 9% PJI, p<0.001) no significant difference between PJI and non-PJI revisions was observed. We found no difference for the risk of PMI comparing DAIR vs one-/two-stage PJI revision (p=0.88). In multivariable analysis (primary arthroplasty as reference), significant odds ratios for PMI included PJI (3, 1.7–5.3), coronary artery disease (2.9, 1.9–4.4), chronic heart faiure (1.3, 1.1–1.7) and age (1.1, 1.0–1.1 per each year age). Urgency of surgery, duration of surgery, to the presence of Staphylococcus aureus were not significant. impact on PMI. Conclusion. In PJI, PMI and MACE were 3-times, and death 4.5 times, respectively, more frequently observed than in primary arthroplasty. Also, PJI had the highest odds for PMI (3.0). Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the high PMI risk when performing revision surgery. This work confirms the importance of a peri-/postpoperative PMI screening and response program in the field of septic surgery

Abstract. Introduction. Revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is a complex procedure with higher rates of re-revision, complications and mortality compared to primary TKA. We report the effects of the establishment of a Revision Arthroplasty Network (The East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON). Methodology. The Revision Arthroplasty Network was established in January 2015 and covered the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming RTKA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, RTKA procedures carried out between 2011 and 2018 from the five EMSON hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within 1 year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years and median length of stay. Results. 33,828 RTKA procedures were performed across England; 1,028 (3.0%) were conducted within EMSON. Re-revision rates within 1 year were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and post-intervention respectively within the network. This compares to a pre-post change from 11.7% to 9.7% for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis, there was a significant immediate improvement in re-revision rates for EMSON hospitals compared to the rest of England at 1 year (p = 0.024) and 2 years (p=0.032). Conclusion. Re-revision rates for RTKA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of EMSON, when compared to the rest of England

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807