To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade.Aims
Methods
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a well-established technique for amplification and sequencing of DNA and has recently gained much attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of NGS in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). In this prospective study samples were collected from 78 revision total hip arthroplasties. Synovial fluid, deep tissue and swabs were obtained at the time of surgery and shipped to the laboratory for NGS analysis. Deep tissue specimens were also sent to the institutional lab for culture. PJI was diagnosed using the Musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) definition of PJI. Thirty-four revisions were considered infected; culture was positive in 25 of these (25/34, 73.5%), while NGS was positive in 26 (26/34, 76.4%). Among the positive cultures, complete concordance between NGS and culture in 21 cases (21/25, 84.0%). 4 cases were discordant. Among these cases, 3 cases were culture-positive and NGS-negative, while 1 was both positive on NGS and culture for disparate organisms. Among the 9 cases of culture-negative PJI(CN-PJI), NGS was able to identify an organism in 4 cases (4/9, 44.4%). The remaining 5 cases were negative on both NGS and culture (5/9, 55.6%). Forty-four revisions were considered to be aseptic; NGS exclusively identified microbes in 7 of 44 “aseptic” revisions (15.9%) and culture exclusively isolated an organism in 3 of 44 cases (6.8%). Both NGS and culture were positive in 1 of case however the result was discordant. The remaining cases (33/44, 75.0%) were both NGS and culture negative. NGS detected several organisms in most positive samples, with a greater number of organisms detected in aseptic compared to septic cases (7 vs. 3.7, respectively). NGS may be a promising technique for identifying the infecting organism in PJI. Our findings suggest that some cases of PJI may be polymicrobial that escape detection using conventional culture.
A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone
loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome
of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of
their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The
aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic
indications. A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for
non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of
complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS),
at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time
of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations
on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR
implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40),
periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a
proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11).Objectives
Methods
The management of proximal femoral bone loss is a significant challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. A possible solution is the use of a modular proximal femur endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the survivorship and functional outcome of megaprostheses used in tumour surgery has been well described, outcome of EPRs used in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year outcome following proximal femur EPR and determine factors that influence it. This was a retrospective consecutive case series of all EPRs (n=80) performed for non-neoplastic indications, by 6 surgeons, in our tertiary referral centre, between 2005–2014. Patient demographics and relevant clinical details were determined from notes. The most common indications for the use of EPRs included infection (n=40), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=12) and failed osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures/complex trauma (n=11). Outcome measures included complication and re-operation rates, implant survival and assessment of functional outcome using the Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS). The mean age at surgery was 69 years and mean follow-up was 4 (0 – 11) years. The mean number of previous hip operations was 2.4 (range: 0 – 17). Twenty-five patients sustained a complication (31%), the most common being infection (n=9) and dislocation (n=4). By follow-up, further surgery was required in 18 (22%) hips, 9 of which were EPR revisions. 5-yr implant survivorship was 87% (95%CI: 76 – 98%). Mean OHS was 28 (range: 4 – 48). Inferior survival and outcome were seen in EPRs performed for the treatment of infection. Infection eradication was achieved in 34/41 with the index EPR procedure and in 40/41 hips by follow-up. Limb salvage was achieved in all cases and acceptable complication- and re-operation rates were seen. EPRs for periprosthetic fractures and failed osteosynthesis had best outcome. We recommend the continued use of proximal femur EPR in complex revision surgery.
