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

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists. Methods. All hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties (2014 to 2020) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, and hip and knee arthroplasties from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries, were included. The expected number of arthroplasties per month in 2020 was estimated using Poisson regression, taking into account changes in age and sex distribution of the general Dutch/Danish population over time, calculating observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Country-specific proportions of patient characteristics and hospital type were calculated per indication category (osteoarthritis/other elective/acute). Waiting list outcomes including QALYs were estimated by modelling virtual waiting lists including 0%, 5% and 10% extra capacity. Results. During COVID-period, fewer arthroplasties were performed than expected (Netherlands: 20%; Denmark: 5%), with the lowest O/E in April. In the Netherlands, more acute indications were prioritized, resulting in more American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III to IV patients receiving surgery. In both countries, no other patient prioritization was present. Relatively more arthroplasties were performed in private hospitals. There were no clinically relevant differences in revision arthroplasties between pre-COVID and COVID-period. Estimated total health loss depending on extra capacity ranged from: 19,800 to 29,400 QALYs (Netherlands): 1,700 to 2,400 QALYs (Denmark). With no extra capacity it will take > 30 years to deplete the waiting lists. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous negative effect on arthroplasty rates, but more in the Netherlands than Denmark. In the Netherlands, hip and shoulder patients with acute indications were prioritized. Private hospitals filled in part of the capacity gap. QALY loss due to postponed arthroplasty surgeries is considerable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):977–990

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

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication for patients and results in greatly increased costs of care for both healthcare providers and patients. More than 15 500 revision hip and knee procedures were recorded in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2013, with infection accounting for 13% of revision hip and 23% of revision knee procedures. We report our experience of using antibiotic eluting absorbable calcium sulphate beads in 15 patients (eight men and seven women with a mean age of 64.8 years; 41 to 83) as part of a treatment protocol for PJI in revision arthroplasty. . The mean follow-up was 16 months (12 to 22). We report the outcomes and complications, highlighting the risk of hypercalcaemia which occurred in three patients. We recommend that serum levels of calcium be routinely sought following the implantation of absorbable calcium sulphate beads in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1237–41

Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal deep tissue specimen sample number for histopathological analysis in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. In this retrospective diagnostic study, patients undergoing revision surgery after total hip or knee arthroplasty (n = 119) between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Multiple specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule were obtained for histopathological analysis at revision arthroplasty. Based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013 criteria, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria, and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021 criteria, PJI was defined. Using a mixed effects logistic regression model, the sensitivity and specificity of the histological diagnosis were calculated. The optimal number of periprosthetic tissue specimens for histopathological analysis was determined by applying the Youden index. Results. Based on the EBJIS criteria (excluding histology), 46 (39%) patients were classified as infected. Four to six specimens showed the highest Youden index (four specimens: 0.631; five: 0.634; six: 0.632). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of five tissue specimens were 76.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 67.6 to 81.4), 86.8% (95% CI 81.3 to 93.5), 66.0% (95% CI 53.2 to 78.7), and 84.3% (95% CI 79.4 to 89.3), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated with 0.81 (as a function of the number of tissue specimens). Applying the ICM and IDSA criteria (excluding histology), 40 (34%) and 32 (27%) patients were categorized as septic. Three to five specimens had the highest Youden index (ICM 3: 0.648; 4: 0.651; 5: 0.649) (IDSA 3: 0.627; 4: 0.629; 5: 0.625). Conclusion. Three to six tissue specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule should be collected at revision arthroplasty and analyzed by a pathologist experienced and skilled in interpreting periprosthetic tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):158–165

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between prior sleeve gastrectomy in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty, and 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Methods. This is a retrospective, single-centre analysis. Patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty with a prior sleeve gastrectomy were eligible for inclusion (n = 80 patients). A morbidly obese control group was established from the same institutional registry using a 1:2 match, for cases:controls with arthroplasty based on propensity score using age, sex, pre-sleeve gastrectomy BMI, Current Procedural Terminology code to identify anatomical location, and presurgical haemoglobin A1C. Outcomes included 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations of underlying preoperative demographic and treatment characteristics with outcomes. Results. Complications within 90 days of surgery were increased in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (odds ratio (OR) 4.00 (95% CI 1.14 to 13.9); p = 0.030). Postoperative revisions were similar in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (OR 17.8 (95% CI 0.64 to 494.3); p = 0.090). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression decreased by a greater amount from pre- to postoperative in the obese controls relative to the sleeve gastrectomy group (OR 4.04 (95% CI 0.06 to 8.02); p = 0.047). PROMIS pain interference and physical function change from pre- to postoperative was not associated with sleeve gastrectomy status. Conclusion. We found a higher rate of complications at 90 days in patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy prior to primary hip or knee arthroplasty relative to a matched, obese control population. Prosthetic revision rates were similar between the two groups, while improvements in PROMIS depression scores were larger in the obese cohort. This study suggests that sleeve gastrectomy to achieve preoperative weight loss prior to arthroplasty surgery may not mitigate early complication risks in obese patient populations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):935–941

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aims. The outcomes of patients with unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and infection-free implant survival in UPCs during presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA and TKA at mid-term follow-up. Methods. This study included 297 patients undergoing presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA or TKA at a single treatment centre. All patients with at least three UPCs obtained during revision surgery were treated with minimum three months of oral antibiotics following revision surgery. The prevalence of UPCs and causative microorganisms, the recurrence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), and the infection-free implant survival were established at minimum five years’ follow-up (5.1 to 12.3). Results. Of the 297 patients undergoing aseptic revisions, 37 (12.5%) had at least three UPCs obtained during surgery. The UPC cohort included 23 males (62.2%) and 14 females (37.8%), with a mean age of 71.2 years (47 to 82). Comorbidities included smoking (56.8%), hypertension (48.6%), diabetes mellitus (27.0%), and chronic renal impairment (13.5%). The causative microorganisms included Staphylococcus epidermidis (49.6%), Bacillus species (18.9%), Micrococcus species (16.2%), and Cutibacterium acnes (16.2%). None of the study patients with UPCs developed further PJIs or required further surgical intervention during follow-up. Conclusion. The prevalence of UPCs during presumed aseptic revision THA and TKA was 12.5%. The most common causative microorganisms were of low virulence, and included S. epidermidis, Bacillus species, Micrococcus species, and C. acnes. Microorganism-specific antibiotic treatment for minimum three months’ duration of UPCs in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty was associated with excellent infection-free implant survival at mid-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):832–836

Aims. Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit. Methods. Data were collected retrospectively from a large tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit’s database. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent TFA in our unit. Preoperative demographics, operative factors, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected for analysis. Outcome was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) outcome reporting tool. Results. Overall, 38 TFAs were identified. The mean age was 73 years (42 to 80). All patients underwent TFA for non-oncological indications, most commonly as a consequence of infection (53%) and periprosthetic fracture (26%). The mean follow-up time was ten years (0 to 26); 63% of TFAs were considered a success based upon the MSIS outcome reporting tool. The mean time between TFA and death was 8.5 years (0.2 to 19.2), with two patients dying within one year of surgery. Within the cohort, 66% suffered at least one complication, dislocation being most common (37%); 55% of the total cohort required at least one subsequent operation. In total, 70% of TFAs undertaken for infection were considered infection-free at time of final follow-up. The percentage of mobile patients improved from 52% to 65% between pre- and postoperation, with all patients being able to at least transfer from bed to chair at time of final review. Conclusion. This study is the largest in the UK assessing the use of TFA in patients with bone loss secondary to non-oncological conditions. It demonstrates that TFA has a significant complication profile, however it is favourable in terms of mortality and rehabilitation when compared to amputation and disarticulation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):888–894

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. Methods. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits. Results. The mean LOS was significantly reduced from 2.02 days (SD 0.80) in the pre-COVID cohort to 1.03 days (SD 0.65) in the post-COVID cohort (p < 0.001). No patients in the pre-COVID group were discharged on the day of surgery compared to 60 patients (48.4%) in the post-COVID group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 90-day complications (13.7% (n = 17) vs 9.7% (n = 12); p = 0.429), 30-day ED visits (1.6% (n = 2) vs 3.2% (n = 4); p = 0.683), or 90-day readmissions (2.4% (n = 3) vs 1.6% (n = 2); p = 1.000) between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups, respectively. Conclusion. Through use of an ERP, arthroplasty procedures were successfully resumed at a safety net hospital with a shorter LOS and increased SDDs without a difference in acute adverse events. The resulting increase in healthcare value therefore may be considered a ‘silver lining’ to the moratorium on elective arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. These improved efficiencies are expected to continue in post-pandemic era. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):871–878

Aims. As a proven and comprehensive molecular technique, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has shown its potential in the diagnosis of pathogens in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), using a single type of specimen. However, the optimal use of mNGS in the management of PJI has not been explored. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic value of mNGS using three types of specimen with the aim of achieving a better choice of specimen for mNGS in these patients. Methods. In this prospective study, 177 specimens were collected from 59 revision arthroplasties, including periprosthetic tissues, synovial fluid, and prosthetic sonicate fluid. Each specimen was divided into two, one for mNGS and one for culture. The criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society were used to define PJI (40 cases) and aseptic failure (19 cases). Results. The sensitivity and specificity of mNGS in the diagnosis of PJI were 95% and 94.7%, respectively, for all types of specimen. The sensitivity and specificity were 65% and 100%, respectively, for periprosthetic tissues, 87.5% and 94.7%, respectively, for synovial fluid, and 92.5% and 94.7%, respectively, for prosthetic sonicate fluid. The mNGS of prosthetic sonicate fluid outperformed that for other types of specimen in the rates of detection of pathogens (84.6%), sequencing reads (> ten-fold) and the rate of genome coverage (> five-fold). Conclusion. mNGS could serve as an accurate diagnostic tool in the detection of pathogens in patients with a PJI using three types of specimen. Due to its superior perfomance in identifying a pathogen, mNGS of prosthetic sonicate fluid provides the most value and may partly replace traditional tests such as bacteriological culture in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):923–930

Aims. To investigate the outcomes of treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) involving total knee and hip arthroplasties. Patients and Methods. Streptococcal PJI episodes which occurred between January 2009 and December 2015 were identified from clinical databases. Presentation and clinical outcomes for 30 streptococcal PJIs in 30 patients (12 hip and 18 knee arthroplasties) following treatment were evaluated from the medical notes and at review. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to estimate the probability of infection-free survival. The influence of the biofilm active antibiotic rifampin was also assessed. Results. The infection was thought to have been acquired haematogenously in 16 patients and peri-operatively in 14. The median follow-up time for successfully treated cases was 39.2 months (12 to 75), whereas failure of the treatment occurred within the first year following treatment on every occasion. The infection-free survival at three years with 12 patients at risk was 59% (95% confidence interval 39% to 75%). Failure of the treatment was observed in ten of 22 PJIs (45%) treated with a two-stage revision arthroplasty, two of six (33%) treated by debridement and prosthesis retention, and in neither of the two PJIs treated with one-stage revision arthroplasty. Streptococcal PJI treated with or without rifampin included in the antibiotic regime showed no difference in treatment outcome (p = 0.175). Conclusion. The success of treatment of streptococcal PJI in our patient cohort was poor (18 of 30 cases, 59%). New therapeutic approaches for treating streptococcal PJI are needed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:653–9

Aims. To establish the utility of adding the laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay to the traditional diagnostic work-up of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A group of four physicians evaluated 158 consecutive patients who were worked up for PJI, of which 94 underwent revision arthroplasty. Each physician reviewed the diagnostic data and decided on the presence of PJI according to the 2014 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria (yes, no, or undetermined). Their initial randomized review of the available data before or after surgery was blinded to each alpha-defensin result and a subsequent randomized review was conducted with each result. Multilevel logistic regression analysis assessed the effect of having the alpha-defensin result on the ability to diagnose PJI. Alpha-defensin was correlated to the number of synovial white blood cells (WBCs) and percentage of polymorphonuclear cells (%PMN). Results. Intraobserver reliability and interobserver agreement did not change when the alpha-defensin result was available. Positive alpha-defensin results had greater synovial WBCs (mean 31,854 cells/μL, SD 32,594) and %PMN (mean 93.0%, SD 5.5%) than negative alpha-defensin results (mean 974 cells/μL, SD 3,988; p < 0.001 and mean 39.4% SD 28.6%; p < 0.001). Adding the alpha-defensin result did not alter the diagnosis of a PJI using preoperative (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.88; p = 0.315) or operative (OR 0.52, CI 0.18 to 1.55; p = 0.242) data when clinicians already decided that PJI was present or absent with traditionally available testing. However, when undetermined with traditional preoperative testing, alpha-defensin helped diagnose (OR 0.44, CI 0.30 to 0.64; p < 0.001) or rule out (OR 0.41, CI 0.17 to 0.98; p = 0.044) PJI. Of the 27 undecided cases with traditional testing, 24 (89%) benefited from the addition of alpha-defensin testing. Conclusion. The laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay did not help diagnose or rule out a PJI when added to routine serologies and synovial fluid analyses except in cases where the diagnosis of PJI was unclear. We recommend against the routine use of alpha-defensin and suggest using it only when traditional testing is indeterminate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):593–599

Aims. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of culture of joint aspirate with and without saline injection-reaspiration. Patients and Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of 580 hip and knee aspirations in patients who were deemed to have a moderate to high risk of infection, and who subsequently proceeded to revision arthroplasty over a period of 12 years. It was carried out at a large quaternary referral centre where preoperative aspiration is routine. Results. Fluid was aspirated primarily in 313 (54%) cases and after saline injection-reaspiration of a ‘dry tap’ in 267 (46%) cases. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic aspirate were 84% (78% to 89%) and 85% (81% to 88%), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of saline injection-reaspiration after ‘dry tap’ were 87% (79% to 92%) and 79% (72% to 84%) compared with 81% (71% to 88%) and 90% (85% to 93%) for direct aspiration. Conclusion. Preoperative joint aspiration and culture is a sensitive and specific test for the confirmation of diagnosis in patients at a moderate to high risk of prosthetic joint infection. Culture of saline injection-reaspiration also provides accurate diagnostic information in the event of a ‘dry tap’. Both methods allow susceptibility testing of relevant organisms and are therefore able to guide perioperative antibiotic therapy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:749–54

Aims. The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high-volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low-volume. Mean total hospital-specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. Results. High-volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While high-volume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 ($21 458 versus $20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 ($17 003 versus $16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher-volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high-volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p <  0.001). Conclusion. While a high-volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1611–17