Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision.

Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715).

Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046).

Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients.

Aims

Large bone defects resulting from osteolysis, fractures, osteomyelitis, or metastases pose significant challenges in acetabular reconstruction for total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the survival and radiological outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction technique in patients at high risk of reconstruction failure (i.e. periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), poor bone stock, immunosuppressed patients), referred to as Hip Reconstruction In Situ with Screws and Cement (HiRISC). This involves a polyethylene liner embedded in cement-filled bone defects reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation.

Osteolysis, fractures, and bone destruction caused by osteomyelitis or metastasis can cause large bone defects and present major challenges during acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty. We sought to evaluate the survivorship and radiographic outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction consisting of a polyethylene liner (semi-constrained) embedded in cement filling bone defect(s) reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation (HiRISC).

Retrospective chart review of 59 consecutive acetabular reconstructions as described above performed by 4 surgeons in a single institution (10/18/2018-1/5/2023) was performed. After radiographs and operative reports were reviewed, cases were classified following the Paprosky classification for acetabular defects. Paprosky type 1 cases (n=26) were excluded, while types 2/3 (n=33) were included for analysis. Radiographic loosening was evaluated up to latest follow-up. Mean follow-up was: 487 days (range, 20–1,539 days).

Out of 33 cases, 2 (6.1%) cases were oncological (metastatic disease) and 22 (66.7%) had deep infection diagnosis (i.e., periprosthetic joint infection [PJI] or septic arthritis). In total, 7 (21.2%) reconstructions were performed on native acetabula (3 septic, 4 aseptic). At a mean follow-up of 1.3 years, 5 (15.2%) constructs were revised: 4 due to uncontrolled infection (spacer exchange) and 1 for instability. On follow-up radiographs, only 1 non-revised construct showed increased radiolucencies, but no obvious loosening. When compared to patients with non-revised constructs, those who underwent revision (n=5) were significantly younger (mean 73.8 vs. 60.6 years, p=0.040) and had higher body mass index (24.1 vs. 31.0 Kg/m², p=0.045), respectively. Sex, race, ethnicity, American-Society-of-Anesthesiologist classification, infection diagnosis status (septic/aseptic), and mean follow-up (449.3 vs. 695.6 days, respectively, p=0.189) were not significantly different between both groups.

HiRISC construct may be a viable short-term alternative to more expensive implants to treat large acetabular defects, particularly in the setting of PJI. Longer follow up is needed to establish long term survivorship.

Introduction

The use of irrigation solution during surgical procedures is a common and effective practice in reduction of bioburden and the risk of subsequent infection. The optimal irrigation solution to accomplish this feat remains unknown. Many surgeons commonly add topical antibiotics to irrigation solutions assuming this has topical effect and eliminates bacteria. The latter reasoning has never been proven. In fact a few prior studies suggest addition of antibiotics to irrigation solution confers no added benefit. Furthermore, this practice adds to cost, has the potential for anaphylactic reactions, and may also contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We therefore sought to compare the antimicrobial efficacy and cytotoxicity of irrigation solution containing polymyxin-bacitracin versus other commonly used irrigation solutions.

It is strongly recommended that tissue and synovial fluid culture samples be obtained during reimplantation performed as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and the influence of positive cultures on subsequent outcome are unknown. This aim of this study was to determine the incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and to investigate the association between positive cultures at reimplantation and the subsequent outcome

A retrospective review was conducted on 267 patients that met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI that completed both stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasty (Table 1). Intraoperative culture results from tissue and/or synovial fluid were obtained. Cultures were positive in 33 cases (12.4%) undergoing reimplantation surgery (Figure 1). Treatment failure was assessed based on the Delphi consensus definition. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure of two-stage exchange arthroplasty.

Treatment failure was 45.5% for those with a positive intraoperative culture and 20.9% in those with negative cultures at the time of reimplantation. When controlling for organism virulence, comorbidities, and other confounding factors, treatment failure was higher (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–4.5) and occurred at an earlier time point (hazard ratio: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3–4.5) in patients with a positive reimplantation culture. The treatment failure rate was not different between cases with two or more positive cultures (36.4%) and one positive culture (42.8%).

Positive intraoperative cultures during reimplantation, regardless of the number of positive samples were independently associated with two times the risk of subsequent infection and earlier treatment failure. Surgeons should be aware that a positive culture at the time of reimplantation independently increases the risk of subsequent failure and needs to be taken seriously. Given the significance of these findings, future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal management of positive cultures during reimplantation surgery.

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.