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:
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating
complication which can follow a total joint arthroplasty (TJA).
Although rare, this ongoing threat undermines the success of
The aim of this study was to determine if the Oxford Knee and Hip Score (OKHS) can accurately predict when a primary knee or hip referral is deemed nonsurgical We retrospectively reviewed pre-consultation OKHS for all consecutive primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) consultations of a single surgeon over three years. The 1436 knees (1016 patients) and 478 hips (388 patients) included were categorized based on the surgeon’s decision into those offered surgery during the first consultation Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing revision for an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with an aseptic revision THA. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, between 2012 and 2017, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing a revision THA (27134, 27137, 27138). International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for infection of an implant or device were used to identify patients undergoing an infected revision THA. CPT-27132 coupled with ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes for infection were used to identify patients undergoing a two-stage revision. A total of 13 556 patients were included; 1606 (11.8%) underwent a revision THA due to infection and there were 11 951 (88.2%) aseptic revisions.Aims
Patients and Methods
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines
for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines,
if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices
and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in
the United States. Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic
joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines. Cite this article:
The purpose of our study is to summarise the current scientific
findings regarding the impact of obesity on total hip arthroplasty
(THA); specifically the influence of obesity on the timing of THA,
incidence of complications, and effect on clinical and functional
outcomes. We performed a systematic review that was compliant with the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
guidelines to identify prospective studies from the PubMed/Medline,
Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that evaluated primary THA
in obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2) patients.Aims
Materials and Methods
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 joint aspiration with an exact identification
of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and
respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics
to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic
elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment
plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies
on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including
cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement
of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic
antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to
14 days. Cite this article:
The aims of this study were to determine the
functional impact and financial burden of isolated and recurrent dislocation
after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our secondary goal was to determine
whether there was a difference between patients who were treated
non-operatively and those who were treated operatively. We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients who had suffered dislocation
of a primary THA. Their mean age was 67 years (41 to 92) and the
mean follow-up was 3.8 years (2.1 to 8.2). Because patients with recurrent dislocation were three times
more likely to undergo operative treatment (p <
0.0001), they
ultimately had a significantly higher mean Harris Hip Score (HHS)
(p = 0.0001), lower mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities
Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (p = 0.001) and a higher mean SF-12
score (p <
0.0001) than patients with a single dislocation. Likewise,
those who underwent operative treatment had a higher mean HHS (p
<
0.0001), lower mean WOMAC score (p <
0.0001) and a higher
mean SF-12 score (p <
0.0001) than those who were treated non-operatively. Recurrent dislocation and operative treatment increased costs
by 300% (£11 456;
p <
0.0001) and 40% (£5217; p <
0.0001), respectively. The operative treatment of recurrent dislocation results in significantly
better function than non-operative management. Moreover, the increase
in costs for operative treatment is modest compared with that of
non-operative measures. Cite this article:
This conversation represents an attempt by several
arthroplasty surgeons to critique several abstracts presented over
the last year as well as to use them as a jumping off point for trying
to figure out where they fit in into our current understanding of
multiple issues in modern hip and knee arthroplasty.