The benefits of cell salvage autotransfusion are well reported. There is a common non-evidenced belief amongst revision arthroplasty surgeons that auto-transfusion is potentially contraindicated in infected revisions. The aim is to study the immediate and delayed outcomes of using cell saver on patients undergoing PJI surgery. Prospective cohort service evaluation registered with the local audit department. 20 PJI cases in 18 patients where cell saver was used over a period of 4 years. Intraoperative fluid and tissue samples were taken for culture. Blood culture from salvaged blood pre and post leucodepletion filter were sent for microbiological analysis. Data on type of surgery, blood loss, further allogenic transfusion and SIRS response was collected. Success of infection clearance was assessed using 2019 MSIS ORT. Five patients receiving autologous blood in non-infection cases were used as controls. Mean age for the PJI group was 67.7 years, 67% female. 11 patients (67%) had 1st stage surgery and 5 (25%) underwent 2nd stage whereas 4 patients had single stage surgery. The mean calculated blood loss was 1398 mls (range 400–3000mls). 6 Patients required further allogenic transfusion. 16 patients received blood via a leuco-depletion filter. The same organism grown from tissues was identified in post-filter blood in 8/17 patients (47%). 2/20 have grown a different organism in post-filtered blood, _P.Acne._ 2 patients developed SIRS upon auto-transfusion, however one was thought to be secondary to cementing. The control group had 443 mls mean amount of blood loss and 1 patient developed a SIRS response. 14/20 (70%) patients had successful clearance of infection (tier 1) 2 patients died prior to undergoing 2nd stage. Using cell saver did not impact main outcome of infection clearance in PJI surgery. We would advocate its routine usage whilst avoiding direct collection of heavily contaminated blood.
Different techniques have been described to address massive bone loss of the acetabulum in revision hip surgery. aMace has gained popularity as it provides customization aiming to restore hip centre and provide good initial stability in cases of large non-contained defects. It takes into account quality of host bone. Its porous defect filling scaffold provides an excellent surface for osteointegration. Our aim was to assess the short and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery using aMace system. Ethical approval was obtained. A retrospective study included all patients who had aMace between June 2013 and October 2022 allowing for a minimum of 12-months follow-up. Patients’ demographics, indication, bone-loss severity, reconstruction details, re-operation, complications, mortality, pain and function were assessed. 52 cases were performed by 13 surgeons with median 51 months follow-up. Median age was 72.7 years. 86.5% were female. Average BMI was 25.3. Average ASA grade was 3. 65% were classified as Paprosky IIIB and 32% were IIIA. 73% were found to have poor bone quality on CT. Main indication for aMace was massive bone loss/discontinuity secondary to aseptic loosening in 88.5%. 77% underwent single-stage revision. 53.8% had 2 or more previous revisions. 71% underwent stem revision in the same setting. 77% received a dual mobility bearing. Re-operation rate was 5.7% for instability and femoral PPF. LLD was reported in 9.6%. Permanent Sciatic nerve palsy occurred in 3.8% of the cases. 30-days mortality was 1.9%. Statistically significant post-op improvements in pain and mobility were reported (p<0.001). None of the acetabular components have been revised. Our study shows satisfactory surgical outcomes with a relatively low complication rate and significant pain and mobility improvements in the early to mid-term stages. We recommend these costly cases to be done in highly specialist centres adopting MDT approach.
