Introduction: etiology of late infection after arthroplasty can be difficult to establish. Histology is the gold standard for infection in patients without inflammatory arthritis but diagnosis in inflammatory arthritis depends on culture (Atkins et al). Real-time PCR offers a rapid and direct assessment for staphylococci and enterococci infection but has not been widely assessed.

The aims of this study were

to develop the Roche lightcycler Staphylococcal and Enterococcal PCR kits to facilitate diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infections

Methods: uplicate, multiple tissue samples were taken (with separate sterile instruments) at the 1^st stage of revision after informed consent. One set were cultured and results interpreted by the Oxford criteria. The second set were extracted using the Qiagen DNA kit, purified (in-house method) and tested using the Roche lightcycler kits.

Results:53 patients undergoing 2 stage revision for suspected infection were recruited.15 (28.3%) had negative histology and no inflammatory arthritis; 3 with single positive cultures and negative PCR – considered contaminants.

29 patients had non-inflammatory arthritis. 14/18 (77.8%) with positive cultures had staphylococci +/or enterococci isolated and 10 PCR results correlated. The other 11 patients had negative cultures.

9 patients had inflammatory arthritis. Six were culture negative and of the other three, 2 were positive for staphylococci on culture with 1 positive by PCR.

Discussion: Negative staphylococcal PCR correlates with the isolation of staphylococci from only one sample. This agrees with the Oxford criteria that such samples may be considered contaminants. Additional positives detected by staphylococcal PCR alone are rare.

Enterococcal PCR confirmed culture positivity in 2/3 patients. An additional 5 positive PCR’s were obtained from patients’ culture negative for enterococci. It is not clear if these are false positives or more sensitive detection of enterococcal isolation.

Aim: To review the early complications associated with staged revision hip Arthroplasty utilising the Biomet antibiotic loaded cement spacer.

Method: We report on 80 consecutive staged revision hip replacements using the Biomet antibiotic loaded cement system in our institution over 3 years (1999–2002), performed by three consultant surgeons, with a minimum 1 year follow up.

Results: Our patients had an average age of 68 (range 48–90) years, with an equal sex distribution.

The median time between the first and second stage was 147 (range 50–619) days.

Fractures of the Biomet antibiotic loaded acrylic spacer occurred in 11% revisions when associated with an increase in time between stages and there was a 7% dislocation rate.

Patients did not receive a revision prosthesis in 19% cases and had early recurrent sepsis following their two stage procedure in 6%. Three patients had a single episode of dislocation of their revision hip prosthesis within a month postoperatively. Two patients had a proximal DVT and one patient had a pulmonary embolus. The mortality within eight weeks was 7%, rising to 10% within a year. This may be related to patient sepsis and comorbidities or the energy expenditure required to mobilise following a first stage procedure that we have analysed.

Conclusions: The risks of staged revision hip surgery for infection are substantial when considering the time involved, the energy expenditure required to mobilise following a first stage, the possibility of not achieving a revision hip prosthesis and the mortality rate.

The Biomet antibiotic loaded cement system articulates and maintains soft tissue length in the majority of patients for the duration required between stages.