Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases.Aims
Methods
Failure of irrigation and debridement (I&D) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by numerous host, surgical, and pathogen-related factors. We aimed to develop and validate a practical, easy-to-use tool based on machine learning that may accurately predict outcome following I&D surgery taking into account the influence of numerous factors. This was an international, multicentre retrospective study of 1,174 revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) undergoing I&D for PJI between January 2005 and December 2017. PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. A total of 52 variables including demographics, comorbidities, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated using random forest machine learning analysis. The algorithm was then verified through cross-validation.Aims
Methods
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article:
