Despite numerous studies focusing on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. Metachronous PJIs are PJIs that can arise in the same or other artificial joints after a period of time, in patients who have previously had PJI. Between January 2010 and December 2018, 661 patients with multiple joint prostheses in situ were treated for PJI at our institution. Of these, 73 patients (11%) developed a metachronous PJI (periprosthetic infection in patients who have previously had PJI in another joint, after a lag period) after a mean time interval of 49.5 months (SD 30.24; 7 to 82.9). To identify patient-related risk factors for a metachronous PJI, the following parameters were analyzed: sex; age; BMI; and pre-existing comorbidity. Metachronous infections were divided into three groups: Group 1, metachronous infections in ipsilateral joints; Group 2, metachronous infections of the contralateral lower limb; and Group 3, metachronous infections of the lower and upper limb.Aims
Methods
The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic fracture is a significant complication of total
hip and knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to describe the survival
of patients sustaining periprosthetic femoral fractures and compare
this with that of the general population, as well as to identify
the factors that influence survival. A total of 151 patients (women: men 116:35, mean age 74.6 years,
standard deviation 11.5) that sustained a periprosthetic fracture
between January 2005 and October 2012 were retrospectively analysed.
Epidemiological data, comorbidities, type of surgical management,
type of implant, and mortality data were studied.Aims
Patients and Methods
We describe the application of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthetic replacement in skeletally-mature patients undergoing revision for failed joint replacement with resultant limb-length inequality after malignant or non-malignant disease. This prosthesis was developed for tumour surgery in skeletally-immature patients but has now been adapted for use in revision procedures to reconstruct the joint or facilitate an arthrodesis, replace bony defects and allow limb length to be restored gradually in the post-operative period. We record the short-term results in nine patients who have had this procedure after multiple previous reconstructive operations. In six, the initial reconstruction had been performed with either allograft or endoprosthetic replacement for neoplastic disease and in three for non-neoplastic disease. The essential components of the prosthesis are a magnetic disc, a gearbox and a drive screw which allows painless lengthening of the prosthesis using the principle of electromagnetic induction. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (18 to 68) with a mean follow-up of 34 months (12 to 62). They had previously undergone a mean of six (2 to 14) open procedures on the affected limb before revision with the non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis. The mean length gained was 56 mm (19 to 107) requiring a mean of nine (3 to 20) lengthening episodes performed in the outpatient department. There was one case of recurrent infection after revision of a previously infected implant and one fracture of the prosthesis after a fall. No amputations were performed. Planned exchange of the prosthesis was required in three patients after attainment of the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There was no failure of the lengthening mechanism. The Mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society rating score was 22 of 30 available points (18 to 28). The use of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis in this manner provided patients with good functional results and restoration of leg-length equality, without the need for multiple open lengthening procedures.
