Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a complex challenge in orthopaedic surgery associated with substantial morbidity and healthcare expenditures. The debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol is a viable treatment, offering several advantages over exchange arthroplasty. With the evolution of treatment strategies, considerable efforts have been directed towards enhancing the efficacy of DAIR, including the development of a phased debridement protocol for acute PJI management. This article provides an in-depth analysis of DAIR, presenting the outcomes of single-stage, two-stage, and repeated DAIR procedures. It delves into the challenges faced, including patient heterogeneity, pathogen identification, variability in surgical techniques, and antibiotics selection. Moreover, critical factors that influence the decision-making process between single- and two-stage DAIR protocols are addressed, including team composition, timing of the intervention, antibiotic regimens, and both anatomical and implant-related considerations. By providing a comprehensive overview of DAIR protocols and their clinical implications, this annotation aims to elucidate the advancements, challenges, and potential future directions in the application of DAIR for PJI management. It is intended to equip clinicians with the insights required to effectively navigate the complexities of implementing DAIR strategies, thereby facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1377–1384.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking.

Failure of fixation is a common problem in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures around the hip. The reinforcement of bone stock or of fixation of the implant may be a solution. Our study assesses the existing evidence for the use of bone substitutes in the management of these fractures in osteoporotic patients. Relevant publications were retrieved through Medline research and further scrutinised. Of 411 studies identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 12 experimental and ten clinical reports. The clinical studies were evaluated with regard to their level of evidence. Only four were prospective and randomised.

Polymethylmethacrylate and calcium-phosphate cements increased the primary stability of the implant-bone construct in all experimental and clinical studies, although there was considerable variation in the design of the studies. In randomised, controlled studies, augmentation of intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur with calcium-phosphate cement was associated with poor long-term results. There was a lack of data on the long-term outcome for trochanteric fractures. Because there were only a few, randomised, controlled studies, there is currently poor evidence for the use of bone cement in the treatment of fractures of the hip.