Rifampicin and fluoroquinolone based therapy is generally considered as first-choice targeted oral antimicrobial therapy for staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections (PJI) treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR). Alternative equally effective antimicrobial strategies are urgently needed due to toxicity and drug-drug interactions that frequently occur with this strategy. Data from recent clinical studies suggests equipoise for other antimicrobial treatment regimens. The objective of the The RiCOTTA-trial is a multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial evaluating clindamycin versus rifampicin/fluoroquinolone combination therapy in the oral treatment phase in patients with staphylococcal PJI managed with DAIR. The trial is performed in 16 hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients are adults with staphylococcal knee or hip PJI managed by DAIR. Patients are included one to six days before antibiotic treatment is switched from intravenous to oral therapy. Patients with a contraindication for rifampicin, with a megaprosthesis or who receive intravenous antibiotics for more than three weeks after initial debridement are excluded. Primary outcome is treatment success one year after finishing antimicrobial treatment. Success is defined as the absence of: i. Infection related re-surgery, ii. New episode of antibiotic treatment for infection of the index joint after the initial treatment phase of 12 weeks, iii. Ongoing use of antibiotics for the index joint at the end of follow-up, iv. Death. The estimated treatment success of rifampicin combination therapy is 85% and the monotherapy strategy is considered not inferior when the difference in treatment success will be less than 10%. Enrolment of 158 patients per group (316 in total) is needed to confirm non-inferiority of monotherapy with a power of 80%. The trial is currently open for enrolment. The study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee Leiden, the Hague, Delft, the Netherlands and registered under EU trial number 2022-501620-26-00 in Clinical Trial Information System.Aim
Method
The duration and extent of postoperative wound leakage after joint arthroplasty in patients with or without a complicated course, like a prosthetic joint infection (PJI), is currently unknown. Adequate differentiation between normal postoperative wound leakage and wound leakage due to a postoperative PJI is important and prevents unnecessary surgical procedures. We investigated the association between postoperative wound leakage and development of PJI in patients who used a previously developed mobile wound care app. A multicenter, prospective cohort study with patients aged 18 years or older after primary implantation or revision of a total joint arthroplasty. During 30 post-operative days after arthroplasty, patients recorded their wound status in the woundcare app. An algorithm calculated a daily score from imputed data. If the daily score exceeded a predefined threshold, the patients received an alert that advised them to contact their physician.Background
Methods
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.
Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has seen a recent revival with third generation Metal-on-Metal prostheses and is now widely in use. However, safety and effectiveness of hip resurfacing are still questioned. We systematically reviewed peer-reviewed literature on hip resurfacing arthroplasty to evaluate implant survival and functional outcomes of hybrid Metal-on-Metal hip resurfacing Arthroplasty. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched from 1988 to September 2009. Identified abstracts were checked for inclusion or exclusion by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and summarized by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Main study endpoint was implant survival, which we compared with the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark. We also evaluated radiological and functional outcomes, failure modes and other adverse events.Introduction
Method
