Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics
into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage
exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases.
Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment,
there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher
success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange
potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need
for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time.
In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-,
peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected,
and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic
testing is based on the
One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95).Aims
Methods
We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We retrospectively reviewed 96 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI. The mean follow-up was 90 months (SD 32). Septic failure was assessed using a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any further surgery undertaken for aseptic mechanical causes was considered as aseptic failure. The cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis was used to predict the risk of septic failure. A regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic failure. The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was also analyzed.Aims
Methods
Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants. Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (Aims
Patients and Methods
We hypothesised that the synovial white blood cell (WBC) count
in patients with a late periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of
the hip would depend on the duration of a patient’s symptoms, and
that the optimal diagnostic threshold would also depend on this
period of time. The synovial WBC count and percentage of polymorphonuclear cells
(%PMN), and the serum CRP and ESR levels obtained >
six weeks after
primary THA were compared between 50 infected and 88 non-infected
THAs, and in patients with symptoms for more than or less than two
weeks. Diagnostic thresholds for the synovial WBC count were calculated
using area under the curve calculation.Aims
Patients and 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:
The differential diagnosis of the painful total
hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or total hip) includes infection,
failure of fixation (loosening), tendinitis, bursitis, synovitis,
adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to cobalt-chromium alloys,
and non-hip issues, such as spinal disorders, hernia, gynecologic,
and other pelvic pain. Assuming that the hip is the source of pain,
the first level question is prosthetic or non-prosthetic pain generator?
The second level prosthetic question is septic or aseptic? The third
level question (aseptic hips) is well-fixed or loose? ALTR is best
diagnosed by cross-sectional imaging. Successful treatment is dependent
on correct identification and elimination of the pain generator.
Treatment recommendations for ALTR and taper corrosion are evolving.
Arthroscopy of the native hip is an established diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Its application in the symptomatic replaced hip is still being explored. We describe the use of arthroscopy of the hip in 24 symptomatic patients following total hip replacement, resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip and partial resurfacing (study group), and compared it with arthroscopy of the native hip in 24 patients (control group). A diagnosis was made or confirmed at arthroscopy in 23 of the study group and a therapeutic arthroscopic intervention resulted in relief of symptoms in ten of these. In a further seven patients it led to revision hip replacement. In contrast, arthroscopy in the control group was diagnostic in all 24 patients and the resulting arthroscopic therapeutic intervention provided symptomatic relief in 21. The mean operative time in the study group (59.7 minutes (35 to 93)) was less than in the control group (71 minutes (40 to 100), p = 0.04) but the arthroscopic approach was more difficult in the arthroplasty group. We suggest that arthroscopy has a role in the management of patients with a symptomatic arthroplasty when other investigations have failed to provide a diagnosis.
We have carried out in 24 patients, a two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for infection with massive bone loss. We used a custom-made, antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis as an interim spacer. Fifteen patients had acetabular deficiencies, eight had segmental femoral bone loss and one had a combined defect. There was no recurrence of infection at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 7). A total of 21 patients remained mobile in the interim period. The mean Merle D’Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 7.3 points before operation to 13.2 between stages and to 15.8 at the final follow-up. The allograft appeared to have incorporated into the host bone in all patients. Complications included two fractures and one dislocation of the cement prosthesis. The use of a temporary spacer maintains the function of the joint between stages even when there is extensive loss of bone. Allograft used in revision surgery after septic conditions restores bone stock without the risk of recurrent infection.
