Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the gold standard for treatment of infection after total hip Arthroplasty and end stage septic arthritis of the hip. In the first stage we used a modified technique to insert an inexpensive modular femoral component coated with antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulating with a polyethylene liner. The construct was used in 8 patients with infected arthroplasty, and 6 patients with septic arthritis of the hip. Two patients were excluded (no second stage). Of the remaining 12 patients, only one patient had persistent infection after the first stage; 11 patients received a successful re-implantation at the second-stage. The technique provide a construct that can be used safely and successfully in the awaiting period between the two stages of revision arthroplasty

Aims. Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. Methods. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications. Results. A total of 19 studies were included: four one-stage, 14 two-stage, and one article with both one- and two-stage groups. Superficial infection was the most common complication (one-stage: 38% vs two-stage: 52%). There was a notable difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis (one-stage: nil vs two-stage: 10%) and implant failure (one-stage: 1% vs two-stage: 9%). Fracture incidence was equivocal (one-stage: 13% vs two-stage: 12%), and comparison of soft-tissue, stoma, and mechanical related complications was not possible. Conclusion. This review suggests that the one-stage approach is favourable compared to the two-stage, because the incidence of complications was slightly lower in the one-stage cohort, with a pertinent difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):539–550

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed. Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series. Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group. All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months. Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs

Aim. The duration of systemic antibiotic therapy following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, use high concentration targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Method. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospectively-collected database was performed to identify those patients who were planned to undergo a two-stage hip revision procedure for PJI. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of PJI as per the major criteria of MSIS 2013, a minimum 5-years follow up and were assessed at the time of review using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool (2018). They were then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). Results. 299 intended two-stage hip revisions in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage) met our inclusion criteria. 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. Median follow up was 10.7 years. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation; dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage surgery. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics following first stage surgery was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference in outcome was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed for gram-positive PJI (87%); than for gram-negative PJI (84%) and mixed Gram infection (72%; p=0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage hip surgery, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

Introduction. The surgical management of late PJI was usually done in two stages with the placement of a temporary cement spacer. The development of one-stage surgical care raises questions about the two-stage strategy. The objectives of this study are to identify the complications related to the presence of the cement spacer within a two-stage strategy. The septic recurrence rate is also evaluated after a minimum follow-up of two years. Material and methods. Medical files of 208 patients (101 knees and 107 hips) who underwent a two-stage revision for late PJI prosthesis infection were retrospectively reviewed. Antibiotic loaded articulated homemade cement spacers were used. Second stage was usually planned on average 4 to 6 weeks after the first stage. Patients were allowed to walk without loading. The success rate was defined as the absence of septic recurrence after a minimum follow-up of two years. Descriptive statistics and uni- and multivariate analysis were conducted. Results. The spacers were left in place for an average of 42 days for the knees and 30 days for the hips. Six patients (3%) died before performing the second stage. Hip spacers were associated with 8 fractures for only one observed in the knee (4%). Spacer dislocation (11%) was observed in 23 cases (13 for the hip and 10 for the knee respectively). Treatment failure with recurrence of the infection within 2 years was observed in 26 patients (12%). Resistance to the antibiotic present in the cement was found in one third of infectious failures. The presence of a prior cemented prosthesis was significantly associated with the presence of a germ resistant to gentamicin and the persistence of the germ at the second stage. However, it was not associated with failure at two years. Discussion. the two-stage management of PJI is associated with a non-negligible mortality rate before the second stage, rarely reported in studies. The presence of an initially cemented prosthesis is associated with the presence of germs resistant to the antibiotic contained in the cement and exposes to the persistence of the resistant germ at the second stage. Spacer fractures are observed more at the hip, but less frequently than in previous reports, while dislocations are observed at both the hip and the knee, particularly due to loss of tibial fixation in this area. These observations are all arguments for further consideration of revision surgery in 1 stage

Aim. Analysis of microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome of patients who underwent a Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure in the early phase following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the knee and hip. Method. Of 312 patients treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty between January 2011 and December 2019, 16 (5.1%) patients (9 knee, 7 hip) underwent a DAIR procedure within 6 months following second stage. We retrospectively analyzed the microbiological results as well as changes in the microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns between stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasties and DAIR procedures. Patient's re-revision rates after a minimum follow-up of 12 months following DAIR procedure were evaluated. Moreover, differences between knee and hip and between infected primary total joint replacement (TJRs) and infected revision TJRs as well as patient's host factors and microbiological results regarding the outcome of DAIR were analyzed. Results. In 7/16 (43.8%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture positive, in 5/16 (31.2%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture negative and in 4/16 (25%) patients the first stage procedure was culture positive, and the second stage procedure was culture negative. Moreover, 6 (37.5%) out of 16 DAIR procedures showed a positive microbiological result. In 5/7 (71.4%) patients with culture positive second stage procedure a different microorganism compared to first stage procedure was detected. In 6/6 (100%) patients with culture positive DAIR procedure, the isolated microorganisms were not detected during first or second stage procedure. An additional re-revision surgery was necessary in 4/16 (25%) patients after a median time of 31 months (range, 12 to 138 months) at a mean follow up of 63.1 ± 32 months following DAIR procedure. Highest re-revision rates were found in patients with culture positive second stage procedures (3/7 [42.9%]) and patients with culture positive DAIR procedures (2/6 [33.3%]). Conclusions. DAIR procedure seems to be a useful early treatment option following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The re-revision rates were independent of different combinations of culture positive and culture negative first and second stage procedures. The high number of changes in the microbiological spectrum needs to be considered in the treatment of PJI

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Aim. Two-stage replacement is a frequent procedure in patients with chronic PJI. However, results in the literature after this procedure differ, ranging from 54% to 100% of infection eradication. Positive cultures at reimplantation, when performing the second stage, are perceived as a risk factor for reinfection. This study aims to determine the impact of positive cultures during the second stage on the outcome of patients undergoing a 2-stage septic replacement and the impact of antibiotic holidays between the first and the second stage. Method. We systematically searched four databases from inception to May 31, 2022. We combined terms related to PJI, joint replacement and culture results. We analysed the risk of failure when positive cultures at second stage and performed a subgroup analysis by antibiotic holiday period. Results. We included 24 studies with 2387 patients of which 432 had positive cultures during second stage (18.09%). Global failure rate was 18.01% (430 patients). When dividing failure by culture results during second stage, we found that failure in positive group was 37.01% (161/432 patients) and failure in negative group was 13.7% (269/1953 patients). In the meta-analysis (MA) the odds ratio (OR) was 4.047 (95% CI: 2.954–5.544). When performing the subgroup analysis by antibiotic holidays we found that the rate of positive cultures without and with holidays was 21.3% and 16.05%, respectively. Failure rate without holidays was 15% (90/600 patients) and with holidays was 17.3% (202/1165 patients) (p=0.21). Failure in each group was higher when cultures were positive (without holidays, 25% vs 12.2%, p=0.0003, and with holidays 41.1% vs 12.7%, p<0.0001). In the MA we found that those studies in which antibiotic holiday was reported had higher risk of failure when cultures were positive during second stage (OR 4.798 95%IC 3.142–7.325). When studies reported no antibiotic holidays also had a higher risk of failure when cultures where positive (OR 2.225 95%CI 1.103–4.489), though it was lower. Conclusions. There exists a higher risk of failure after a two-stage septic replacement when cultures are positive during reimplantation. Patients who followed no antibiotic holidays or antibiotic holidays before reimplantation have similar failure rate when cultures are negative. In both groups they have a higher risk of failure when cultures are positive, having higher risk those positive patients in the antibiotic holidays group. Therefore, importance in detecting these patients before reimplantation is crucial to ensure higher survival rates

Aim. To improve the challenging treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), researchers are constantly developing new handling methods and strategies. In patients with PJI after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and severe local or systemic comorbidities, a two-stage exchange using a temporary antibiotic loaded PMMA-spacer is considered gold standard. This method has undisputed advantages, however, the increased risk of biofilm formation on the spacer surface, bone defects and soft tissue contractions after a six-week spacer interval are severe limitations. Our hypothesis is that a vacuum sealed foam in combination with constant instillation of an antiseptic fluid can address these drawbacks due to a significantly reduced spacer interval. Method. A pilot study was conducted in five PJI cases after TKA with severe comorbidities and/or multiple previous operations to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the proposed method. In the first step, surgical treatment included the explantation of the prosthesis, debridement, and the implantation of the VeraFlo-Dressing foam. The foam is connected to the VAC-Instill-Device via an inflow and an outflow tube. The surgical site is sealed airtight with the VAC-film. During the next 5 days, an antiseptic fluid (Lavasorb® or Taurolidine®) is instilled in a 30-minute interval using the VAC-Instill-Device. The limb is immobilized (no flexion in the knee joint, no weight bearing) for five days. Following that, the second operation is performed in which the VAC-VeraFlo. TM. -Therapy System is explanted and the revision TKA is implanted after debridement of the joint. Results. No serious adverse event occurred during the VAC-Instill spacer treatment. The TKA revision was performed after a mean of 5.4 ± 1.9 days. Mean patient age was 71±6 years with a mean of 6 previous PJI surgeries. Host classification according to McPherson was I/B/3, III/B/3 and III/C/3 in three cases. Out of the five cases included, four were successfully treated and remained infect free to date (mean 14.2 ± 12 months; germs: methicillin-resistant s. aureus, e. coli, staph. lugdunensis and one culture neg.). One case with candida infection of a total femur prosthesis had to be treated with an enucleation of the hip due to rising inflammation parameters and signs of sepsis 7 days after VAC-Instill implantation. Conclusions. The presented data on the VAC-Instill spacer method in septic two-stage revision TKA show promising results regarding feasibility and safety. A prospective randomized controlled examination is in progress to evaluate the possible advantages over a two-stage approach using a standard PMMA spacer

Deep peri-prosthetic infection after partial or total knee arthroplasty is a disconcerting problem for patient and surgeon alike. The diagnosis of infection is sometimes obvious but frequently requires that the surgeon maintain a substantial index of suspicion for infection as the cause of pain or poor outcome after any joint arthroplasty. While surgical debridement with component retention is appropriate in a subgroup of patients with an acute peri-prosthetic infection, most delayed and chronic infections are best treated with component resection. With carefully selected patients and very aggressive debridement protocols some success has been demonstrated in Europe with single-stage exchange for infection. Most surgeons in North America, however, are unfamiliar with the very aggressive debridement techniques employed at European centers that promote single stage replant; and few surgeons in North America are currently comfortable in cementing a hinged total knee replacement in place for the typical infected TKA nor do they have the patience to re-prep and drape with an entirely new OR setup after debridement and prior to the insertion of the new implant − 2 steps that are often mentioned as important to the success of single stage exchange. The pre-eminent role of two-stage exchange as the definitive treatment was established over 30 years ago. Two-stage exchange remains the gold-standard in treatment with an established track record from multiple centers and with multiple different types of infecting organisms. Some of the historical problems with two-stage exchange, such as limited mobility during the interval stage, have been mitigated with the development of effective articulating spacer techniques. Further, the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and the possibility of fungal infection make two-stage exchange the best choice for the majority of patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection in 2017

Introduction. Despite several studies, controversies prevailed about the rate of complications following one-stage and two-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA). In current prospective study, we compared the complications and functional outcomes of one-stage and two-stage procedures. Methods. One hundred and eighty patients (ASA class I or II) with bilateral hip osteoarthritis were assigned randomly to two equal groups. Two groups were matched in term of age and sex. All of the surgeries were performed through the Harding approach using uncemented implants. In two-stage procedures, surgeries were performed with 6 months to one year interval. All patients were evaluated one year postoperatively. Results. The Harris hip score averaged 84.1±12.6 and 82.6±15.3 in one-stage and two-stage groups, respectively (p=0.528). The hospital stay was significantly longer in two-stage group (9.8±1.1 versus 4.9±0.8 days). The cumulative hemoglobin drop and number of transfused blood units were the same. One patient in each group developed symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and managed successfully. There was no patient with perioperative death, pulmonary embolism, infection, dislocation, periprosthetic fracture or heterotrophic ossification. No patient required reoperation. Two patients in one-stage group developed unilateral temporary peroneal nerve palsy resolved after 3 and 4 months. Conclusion. The current study showed that one-stage bilateral THA can be used successfully for patients who require bilateral hip arthroplasty without increased rate of complications. The functional and clinical outcomes are comparable and hospital stay is significantly shorter. However, the authors recommend to perform one-stage bilateral THA for healthy patients with ASA class I or II

Aim. Due to medical and organizational factors, it occurs in everyday practice that spacers are left in place longer than originally planned during a two-stage prosthesis exchange in the case of prosthetic joint infections. Patients are severely restricted in their mobility and, after initial antibiotic administration, the spacer itself only acts as a foreign body. The aim of this study is to analyze whether the duration of the spacer in situ has an influence on the long-term success of treatment and mortality. Method. We retrospectively studied all 204 two-stage prosthesis replacements of the hip and knee from 2012 to 2016 with a minimum follow-up of two years at an arthroplasty center with 3 main surgeons. The duration of the spacer interval was divided into two groups. Patients replanted within ten weeks (as is standard in multiple algorithms) after systemic antibiotic treatment were assigned to the ‘Regular Spacer Interval (< 70 days)’ group. If the spacer interval was longer, they were assigned to the ‘Long Spacer Interval (≥ 70 days)’ group. Results. Patients were on average 67.69 years old (SD 12.3). The mean duration of the spacer-interval was 100.9 days (range: 423.0; SD, 60.0). In 62 patients reimplantation could be performed within 70 days after explantation, in 142 patients this took longer (max. 438 days). In 26 patients, the spacer had to be changed at least once during this period (11 patients in the hip group, and 15 patients in the knee group). In the remaining cases, other medical or organizational reasons delayed replantation. Both groups were comparable concerning Charlson Comorbity Index, age, number of previous surgeries and laboratory infection markers. There was no statistically significant influence of the duration of the spacer interval on the infection free survival (n=204, p=0.32). There was also no influence on mortality (n=204, p=0.35) and aseptic implant failure (n=204, p=0.15). Conclusions. The timely replantation of a knee or hip prosthesis seems to be reasonable in general because the patients are strongly limited in their mobility and daily activities by the spacer. However, there does not seem to be a negative influence on infection eradication and survival due to a long spacer interval

Aim. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a severe complications after hip arthroplasty. The infections rate ranges from 0.7 to 1.3 depending on different reports. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the radiological and clinical outcome of patients that underwent two-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip when an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) was necessary to remove the femoral stem. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed data from 84 patients that underwent two-stage revision of the hip between January 2006 and December 2010 at our institution. In forty-nine patients (Group A, 58.3%), the femoral stem was removed without an ETO, while in the remaining thirty-five patients (Group B, 41.7%) an ETO was necessary. In each case a metallic cerclage was used to closure of the flap. The average age for patients in group A was 64.3 years, while the average age in patients in group B was 66.4 years. The mean follow-up was respectively 117 months in group A and 122 months in group B. Eight patients died before the last follow-up, and data from six patients were incomplete. Complications, radiological and clinical outcome were. Mann Whitney U Test and Chi Square Test were used respectively to analyze continues and categorical variables. Cumulative survival of the implants was calculated for reinfection and mechanical complications with Kaplan-Meyer curves. Results. The mean follow-up was 118 months. The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 4.7% at 1 years and 10.7 at last follow-up. No statistically significant (p-value > 0.05) differences were observed in the two groups neither at 1 year nor at last follow up. The cumulative incidence of mechanical complication was 3.6% at 1 year and 8.3% at last follow-up. No statistically significant differences (p-value > 0.05) were observed in the two groups neither at 1 year nor at last follow up. All the patients had the healing of the ETO at six months (mean 11.4 weeks). The mean Harris Hip Score was 77.5. No statistically significant (p-value > 0.05) differences were observed in the two groups. Discussion. The results obtained in this retrospective study demonstrates that there is no difference in terms of reinfection-rate, mechanical complications and clinical outcome in patients that underwent two-stage revision with or without an ETO. In presence of a well-fixed femoral stem, performing an ETO could be helpful to expose the femoral canal facilitating the femoral stem's removal avoiding intra-operative femoral fracture

Joint replacement is a highly effective intervention to treat osteoarthritis of the hip, relieving pain and improving mobility and quality of life.(1) Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after arthroplasty. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention are treatment of first choice in case of early infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA).(2) In case of persisting infection, one- or two-stage revision needs to be performed.(3) The use of different kinds of spacers has been widely debated in the past years.(4). The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer should be used during the interval of two-stage revision of an infected THA. A search term with Boolean operators was constructed. We extracted all information regarding study and patient characteristics and baseline clinical and laboratory findings. Data regarding type of spacer and antibiotics used, timing of second stage surgery, tissue culture results, postoperative regimen, functional outcome and patient satisfaction were extracted. A total of twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria and were included for data analysis. Ten studies described various preformed spacers, six studies described functional spacers and eleven studies described custom made spacers. See Table 1 for results. Research should focus on finding the preferred type of treatment and type of spacer to combine a high success rate of infection treatment with a good functional and patient reported outcome. There is a need for a prospective study evaluating patient satisfaction and functional outcome after two-stage revision THA comparing various spacers. Secondly, research should focus on the optimal timing of the second stage procedure. Functional spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after two-stage revisionTHA to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer

Aim. The optimal surgical approach for patients hospitalized for moderate to severe septic bursitis is not known, and there have been no randomized trials of a one-stage compared with a two-stage (i.e., bursectomy, followed by closure in a second procedure) approach. Thus, we performed a prospective, non-blinded, randomized study of adult patients hospitalized for an open bursectomy. Method. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a one-stage vs. a two-stage surgical approach. All patients received postsurgical oral antibiotic therapy for 7 days. These are the final results of the prospective study registered at ClinicalTrials (NCT01406652). Results. Among 164 enrolled patients, 130 had bursitis of the elbow and 34 of the patella. The surgical approach used was one-stage in 79 and two-stage in 85. The two groups were balanced with regards to sex, age, causative pathogens, levels of serum inflammatory markers, co-morbidities, and cause of bursitis. Overall, there were 22 treatment failures: 8/79 (10%) in the one-stage arm and 14/85 (16%) in the two-stage arm (Pearson-χ2-test; p=0.23). Recurrent infection was caused by the same pathogen a total of 7 patients (4%), and by a different pathogen in 5 episodes (3%). The incidence of infection recurrence was not significantly different between those in the one- vs. two-stage arms (6/79 vs. 8/85; χ2-test: p=0.68). In contrast, outcomes were better in the one- vs. two-stage arm for wound dehiscence (2/79[3%] vs. 10/85[12%]; p=0.02), median length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 6 days), nurses’ workload (605 vs. 1055 points) and total costs (6,881 vs. 11,178 Swiss francs) (all p<0.01). Conclusions. For adult patients with moderate to severe septic bursitis requiring hospital admission, bursectomy with primary closure, together with 7 days of systemic antibiotic therapy, was safe, resource-saving and effective. Using a two-stage approach did not reduce the risk of infectious recurrence, and may be associated with a higher rate of wound dehiscence than the one-stage approach

Aim. In two-stage replacements for septic loosening, some studies have suggested that associate bacterial colonization of spacers had a worse result in relation to the control of the infection and a higher rate of complications after the implantation of the definitive prosthesis. The aim of our study was to determine the reoperation rate of patients undergoing two-stage revision surgery according to the results of spacer sonication. Method. A retrospective observational study was conducted in which 56 hip or knee spacers implanted at our center from 2010 to 2017 were analysed. Patients were grouped into three categories:. Patients with positive spacer sonication fluid culture, with or without positive cultures from the rest of the samples. Patients with negative spacer sonication culture and negative second-stage intraoperative cultures. Patients with negative spacer sonication culture but positive cultures of the rest of intraoperative samples. Results. Of the 56 patients analysed, 11 were included in group A, 32 in group B and 13 in group C. The reoperation rate was 36%, 34% and 54% respectively. Reoperation rate due to infection was 9%, 25% and 46% respectively. In only two cases (both in group C), the reoperation was caused by infection by a previously isolated microorganism. Spacers were colonized in all cases by low virulence microorganisms (coagulase negative staphylococci, P. acnes or Candida). Within group A, six patients also had other positive cultures. Conclusions. In our study, bacterial colonization of the spacer is not associated with a higher rate of reoperations in the short-medium term. The group of patients with positive cultures in the second stage surgery was the one with the highest rate of reoperations

Introduction. It is still controversial whether one or two-stage revision should be indicated for deeply infected hip prosthesis, and there are no scoring systems for the decision of them. An assessment system for the treatment of deeply infected hip prosthesis was evaluated for the patients who had undergone one or two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Materials and Methods. Between February 2001 and November 2009, revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 60 hips on 59 patients by the senior authors. Nineteen hips underwent one-stage revision THA using antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (ALAC), and 41 hips did two-stage revision THA using ALAC beads, based on the criteria by Jackson and Schmalzried. This study included 47 revisions in 47 patients for which a minimum follow-up of two years (average 4.7 years). Six parameters were employed in the assessment system: 1) general condition, 2) duration of infection, 3) wound complication after initial operation, 4) microorganism, 5) C-reactive protein (CRP), and 6) necessity for grafting bone. Each parameter ranged from 0 to 2 points, giving a full score of 12 points. Healing was defined as the lack of clinical signs and symptoms of infection, a CRP level < 10 mg/l or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate < 20 mm/h, and the absence or radiological signs of infection at the follow-up visit > 24 months after first revision, described by Giulieri et al. Results. Forty-five hips (95.7%) were free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Healing rates in one and two-stage revision THA were 93.3% (14/15) and 96.9% (31/32). Of the 15 patients in one-stage revision THA, the average total score in success and failed cases were 9.7 ± 0.7 points (range, 9 to 11 points) and 6 points, respectively. Of the 32 patients in two-stage revision THA, the average total score in success, recurred and failed cases were 8.3 ± 1.6 points (6 to 11 points), 9.5 ± 0.6 points (9 to 10 points) and 5 points, respectively. In one or two-stage revision THA, the average total score of the success cases was high compared with that of the failed case. There were significant differences of the average total score in success cases between the one and two-stage revision THAs (p<0.05). Conclusions. A one-stage revision THA for deeply infected hip prosthesis should be performed on those cases who scored above 9 points, while a palliative operation may be indicated for those who scored under 5 points. However, it is difficult to forecast the recurrence using only this scoring system

Purpose. Two-stage revision with the removal of all prosthesis has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stem is technically challenging and may cause excessive bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare the results between retention and removal of femoral stem when performing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. Materials & Methods. From 2007 to 2014, ninety-four patients with infection after hip arthroplasty were treated by using two-stage exchange protocol with temporary articulating spacers. Among them, 38 patients completed the planned second stage reimplantation. Stem was exchanged in 15 patients (group I) and retained in 23 patients (group II). We retrospectively investigated the clinical and radiographic results after an average 39.9 months follow up. Results. The rate of infection control was 86.6% (13/15) in group I, 86.9% (20/23) in group II. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in term of demographics or presence of resistant organism. Conclusion. Retention of well-fixed cementless stem during two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty could be alternative treatment option for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection

Different therapeutic options for prosthetic joint infections exist, but surgery remains the key. With a two-stage exchange procedure, a success rate above 90% can be expected. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal duration between explantation and the reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes between short-interval and long-interval two-stage exchanges. Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis. 145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19–103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10–402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5–152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table. The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome

Failure of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) poses a major clinical challenge. There is a paucity of information regarding the outcome of further surgical intervention in these patients. Thus, we aim to report the clinical outcomes of subsequent surgical intervention following a failed prior two-stage exchange. Our institutional database was used to identify 60 patients (42 knees and 18 hips) with a failed prior two-stage exchange from infection, who underwent further surgical intervention between 1998 and 2012 and had a minimum of two years follow-up. A retrospective review was performed to extract relevant clinical information, such as mortality, microbiology, and subsequent surgeries. Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were used to define PJI, and treatment success was defined using the Delphi criteria as previously reported. Irrigation and debridement (I&D) was performed after a failed two-stage exchange in 61.7% (37/60) patients. The failure rate of I&D in this cohort was 51.3% (19/37). Two patients underwent amputation after I&D due to uncontrolled infection. A total of 40 patients underwent an intended a second two-stage exchange. Reimplantation occurred in only 65% of cases (26/40), and infection was controlled in 61.6% (16/26) of patients. An interim spacer exchange was required in 15% (6/40) of the cases. Of the 14 cases that did not undergo a second stage reimplantation, 5 required amputation, 6 had retained spacers, 1 underwent arthrodesis, and 2 patients died. Further surgical intervention after a failed prior two-stage exchange has poor outcomes. I&D has a high failure rate and many of the patients who are deemed candidates for a second two-stage exchange either do not undergo reimplantation for various reasons or fail after reimplantation. The management of PJI clearly remains imperfect, and there is a dire need for further innovations that may improve the care of these PJI patients