Aims. The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Methods. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’. Results. A total of 299 two-stage revision THAs in 289 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 258 (86%) proceeded to second-stage surgery. Their mean age was 68.1 years (28 to 92). The median follow-up was 10.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 6.3 to 15.0). A 91% success rate was seen in those patients who underwent reimplantation, decreasing to 86% when including those who did not proceed to reimplantation. The median duration of postoperative systemic antibiotics following the first stage was five days (IQR 5 to 9). There was no significant difference in outcome between those patients who were treated with antibiotics for ≤ 48 hours (p = 0.961) or ≤ five days (p = 0.376) compared with those who were treated with longer courses. Greater success rates were seen for Gram-positive PJIs (87%) than for Gram-negative (84%) and mixed-Gram PJIs (72%; p = 0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics at the time of first-stage revision surgery for PJI of the hip, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship, and reduced hospital costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):511–517

Aims

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).

The removal of all prosthetic material and a two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection, with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved. The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to 192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining 14 patients. We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral cement mantle can be safely left in situ, without compromising the treatment of infection. Advantages of this technique include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock and a technically more straightforward second-stage procedure

When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83). The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism. We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system

A two-stage procedure was carried out on 57 patients with confirmed infection in a hip replacement. Allograft bone was used in the second stage. Pathogenic organisms were identified in all patients. In stage 1, the prosthesis was removed together with infected tissue. Antibiotics were added to customised cement beads. Systemic antibiotics were not used. At the second stage, 45 of the patients had either acetabular impaction grafting, femoral impaction grafting or a combination; 12 had a massive allograft.

Eight patients suffered recurrent infection (14%), in six with the original infecting organism. The risk factors for re-infection were multiple previous procedures and highly resistant organisms. We believe that systemic antibiotic therapy should be considered for these patients. Allograft bone is shown to be a useful adjunct in most infected hip replacements with considerable loss of bone stock.

We treated 50 consecutive patients with infected total hip arthroplasties according to a standard protocol. Previous surgery to eradicate the infection had been attempted in 13 patients and discharging sinuses were present in 20. Aspiration arthrography was routinely carried out before our interventions. The first stage was a meticulous removal of all foreign and potentially infected material. Samples were taken for culture and a thorough lavage carried out. Antibiotic-loaded beads were placed in the femoral shaft and an antibiotic-loaded cement ball in the acetabulum. At the second stage an uncemented arthroplasty was introduced. Bone allograft was used in 18 patients. The interval between procedures was usually three weeks, but this was extended if the wound was slow to heal or there was extensive bony destruction. Appropriate antibiotics were given for three months. At a mean follow-up of 5.8 years the rate of reinfection was 8% (4 patients). Two of these patients have had another, successful, two-stage revision. At this medium-term review, a satisfactory clinical and radiological outcome was obtained in all except two patients

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5.

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Aims. The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients and Methods. We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years. Results. A satisfactory control of infection and successful outcome was seen in 26 patients (57%). There therefore remained persistent symptoms that either required further surgery or chronic antibiotic suppression in 16 patients (38%). One-third of patients had died by the time of two years’ follow-up. Conclusion. The rate of failure and complication rate of repeat two-stage exchange THA for PJI is high and new methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer periods between stages, and new and more powerful forms of antimicrobial treatment should be investigated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):110–115

Aims. Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all DAIRs, performed for confirmed infected primary hip arthropasty (n = 82) at out institution, between 1997 and 2013. Data recorded included full patient information and type of surgery. Outcome measures included complications, mortality, implant survivorship and functional outcome. Outcome was compared with two control groups matched for gender and age; a cohort of primary THAs (n = 120) and a cohort of two-stage revisions for infection (n = 66). Results. Mean age at DAIR was 69 years (33 to 87) and mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 17; standard deviation (. sd). 5). A total of 52 (63%) of DAIRs were for early PJI (less than six weeks). Greater success in the eradication of infection with DAIR was identified with early PJI, comprising an interval less than a week between onset of symptoms and exchange of modular components with the DAIR procedure. Eradication of infection, complications and re-operation rates were similar in the DAIR and two-stage revision groups. For hips with successful eradication of infection with DAIR, the five-year survival (98%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100) was similar to the primary THA group (98%; 95% CI 95 to 100) (n = 43; p = 0.3). The DAIR group had inferior mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) (38; 12 to 48) compared with the primary THA group (42; 15 to 48) (p = 0.02) but a significantly better mean OHS compared with the two-stage revision group (31; 0 to 48) (p = 0.008). Patients who required only one DAIR for eradication of infection had a similar mean OHS (41; 20 to 48) to the primary THA group (p = 0.2). Conclusion. The DAIR procedure is associated with a similar complication rate and ability to eradicate infection as two-stage revision. This study emphasises the need for exchange of modular components for improved chances of eradication of infection. This is the first study showing that DAIR is better than a two-stage revision regarding functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:614–22

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition. Methods. A retrospective analysis included 78 PJI patients (29 hips; 49 knees) who had undergone multiple prior surgical interventions. Our cohort was treated with single-stage revision using a supplementary intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Of these 78 patients, 59 had undergone more than two prior failed debridement and implant retentions, 12 patients had a failed arthroplasty resection, three hips had previously undergone failed two-stage revision, and four had a failed one-stage revision before their single-stage revision. Previous failure was defined as infection recurrence requiring surgical intervention. Besides intravenous pathogen-sensitive agents, an intra-articular infusion of vancomycin, imipenem, or voriconazole was performed postoperatively. The antibiotic solution was soaked into the joint for 24 hours for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), then extracted before next injection. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results. A total of 68 patients (87.1%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 85 months (24 to 133). The seven-year infection-free survival was 87.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79.4 to 95.8). No significant difference in infection-free survival was observed between hip and knee PJIs (91.5% (95% CI 79.9 to 100) vs 84.7% (95% CI 73.1 to 96.3); p = 0.648). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score was 76.1 points (63.2 to 92.4) and Hospital for Special Surgery score was 78. 2 (63.2 to 92.4) at the most recent assessment. Polymicrobial and fungal infections accounted for 14.1% (11/78) and 9.0% (7/78) of all cases, respectively. Conclusion. Single-stage revision with intra-articular antibiotic infusion can provide high antibiotic concentration in synovial fluid, thereby overcoming reduced vascular supply and biofilm formation. This supplementary route of administration may be a viable option in treating PJI after multiple failed prior surgeries for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):867–874

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims. Recurrent infection following two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication. The purpose of this study was to report the survival of repeat two-stage revision hip arthroplasty, describe complications, and identify risk factors for failure. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively identified 19 hips (19 patients) that had undergone repeat two-stage revision THA for infection between 2000 to 2013. There were seven female patients (37%) and the mean age was 60 years (30 to 85). Survival free from revision was assessed via Kaplan–Meier analysis. The patients were classified according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) system, and risk factors for failure were identified. Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11). Results. Gram-positive bacteria were responsible for 16/17 (94%) of the re-infections where microbes were identified. Following the repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty, survival free from any revision was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56% to 96%, 14 at risk) at two years and 45% (95% CI 25% to 75%, five at risk) at five years. Failure to control infection resulted in re-operation or revision in 42%A of patients (8/19). Survival free from revision was not dependent on host grade. Conclusion. Re-infection after two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for PJI presents a challenging scenario. Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty has a low survival free from revision at five years (45%) and a high rate of re-infection (42%). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1157–61

Our aim was to determine the success rate of repeated debridement and two-stage cementless revision arthroplasty according to the type of infected total hip replacement (THR). We enrolled 294 patients (294 hips) with an infected THR in the study. There were 222 men and 72 women with a mean age of 55.1 years (24.0 to 78.0). The rate of control of infection after the initial treatment and after repeated debridement and two-stage revisions was determined. The clinical (Harris hip score) and radiological results were evaluated. The mean follow-up was 10.4 years (5.0 to 14.0). The eventual rate of control of infection was 100.0% for early superficial post-operative infection, 98.4% for early deep post-operative infection, 98.5% for late chronic infection and 91.0% for acute haematogenous infection. Overall, 288 patients (98%) maintained a functioning THR at the latest follow-up. All the allografts appeared to be united and there were no failures. These techniques effectively controlled infection and maintained a functional THR with firm fixation in most patients. Repeated debridement and two-stage or repeated two-stage revisions further improved the rate of control of infection after the initial treatment and increased the likelihood of maintaining a functional THR

Revision arthroplasty after infection can often be complicated by both extensive bone loss and a relatively high rate of re-infection. Using allograft to address the bone loss in such patients is controversial because of the perceived risk of bacterial infection from the use of avascular graft material. We describe 12 two-stage revisions for infection in which segmental allografts were loaded with antibiotics using iontophoresis, a technique using an electrical potential to drive ionised antibiotics into cortical bone. Iontophoresis produced high levels of antibiotic in the allograft, which eluted into the surrounding tissues. We postulate that this offers protection from infection in the high-risk peri-operative period. None of the 12 patients who had two-stage revision with iontophoresed allografts had further infection after a mean period of 47 months (14 to 78)

We report the outcome at ten to 15 years of two-stage revision for hip infection in 99 patients using the Prostalac articulated hip spacer system. All the patients were contacted to determine their current functional and infection status using the Oxford-12, Short form-12, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index questionnaires. A total of 11 of the 99 patients had a further infection, of whom seven responded to repeat surgery with no further sequelae. The mean interval between the stages was five months (1 to 36). We were able to review 48 living patients, with a mean age of 72 years (46 to 86), 34 (71%) of whom provided health-related quality-of-life outcome scores. The mean follow-up was 12 years (10 to 15). The long-term success rate was 89% and with additional surgery this rose to 96%. The mean global Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index score was 80.6 (. sd. 18.3). The mean Oxford-12 score was 74.0 (. sd. 22.3), and the mean Short form-12 score was 53.1 (. sd. 9.4) (mental) and 33.5 (. sd. 13.5) (physical). The mean satisfaction score was 90.5 (. sd. 15.3). Two-stage revision for hip infection using a Prostalac interim spacer offers a predictable and lasting solution for patients with this difficult problem

Aims. 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. Patients and Methods. 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. Results. Patients undergoing an infected revision had a significantly greater length of stay of more than three days (p < 0.001), higher odds of any 30-day complication (p < 0.001), readmission within 30 days (p < 0.001), 30-day reoperations (p < 0.001), and discharge to a destination other than the patient’s home (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The findings suggest the need for enhanced risk adjustment based on the indication of revision THA prior to setting prices in bundled payment models of total joint arthroplasty. This risk adjustment should be used to reduce the chance of financial disincentives in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:547–551

We report the five year outcomes of a two-stage approach for infected total hip replacement. This is a single-surgeon experience at a tertiary centre where the more straightforward cases are treated using single-stage exchange. This study highlights the vital role of the multidisciplinary team in managing these cases. A total of 125 patients (51 male, 74 female) with a mean age of 68 years (42 to 78) were reviewed prospectively. Functional status was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). The mean HHS improved from 38 (6 to 78.5) pre-operatively to 81.2 (33 to 98) post-operatively. Staphylococcus species were isolated in 85 patients (68%). . The rate of control of infection was 96% at five years. In all, 19 patients died during the period of the study. This represented a one year mortality of 0.8% and an overall mortality of 15.2% at five years. No patients were lost to follow-up. . We report excellent control of infection in a series of complex patients and infections using a two-stage revision protocol supported by a multidisciplinary approach. The reason for the high rate of mortality in these patients is not known. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1312–18

Periprosthetic infection following total hip replacement can be a catastrophic complication for the patient. The treatments available include single-stage exchange, and two-stage exchange. We present a series of 50 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of infected total hip replacement who were assessed according to a standardised protocol. Of these, 11 underwent single-stage revision arthroplasty with no recurrence of infection at a mean of 6.8 years follow-up (5.5 to 8.8). The remaining 39 underwent two-stage revision, with two recurrences of infection successfully treated by a second two-stage procedure. At five years, significant differences were found in the mean Harris Hip Scores (single-stage 87.8; two-stage 75.5; p = 0.0003) and in a visual analogue score for satisfaction (8.6; 6.9; p = 0.001) between the single- and two-stage groups. Single-stage exchange is successful in eradicating periprosthetic infection and results in excellent functional and satisfaction scores. Identification of patients suitable for the single-stage procedure allows individualisation of care and provides as many as possible with the correct strategy in successfully tackling their periprosthetic infection

Infection of a total hip replacement (THR) requires component removal and thorough local debridement. Usually, long-term antibiotic treatment in conjunction with a two-stage revision is required. This may take several months. One-stage revision using antibiotic-loaded cement has not gained widespread use, although the clinical and economic advantages are obvious. Allograft bone may be impregnated with high levels of antibiotics, and in revision of infected THR, act as a carrier providing a sustained high local concentration. We performed 37 one-stage revision of infected THRs, without the use of cement. There were three hips which required further revision because of recurrent infection, the remaining 34 hips (92%) stayed free from infection and stable at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years (2 to 8). No adverse effects were identified. Incorporation of bone graft was comparable with unimpregnated grafts. Antibiotic-impregnated allograft bone may enable reconstruction of bone stock, insertion of an uncemented implant and control of infection in a single operation in revision THR for infection