Aims. We studied the impact of direct anterior (DA) versus non-anterior (NA) surgical approaches on prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and examined the impact of new perioperative protocols on PJI rates following all surgical approaches at a single institution. Patients and Methods. A total of 6086 consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a single institution between 2013 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data obtained from electronic patient medical records included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, surgical approach, and presence of deep PJI. There were 3053 male patients (50.1%) and 3033 female patients (49.9%). The mean age and BMI of the entire cohort was 62.7 years (18 to 102, . sd. 12.3) and 28.8 kg/m. 2. (13.3 to 57.6, . sd. 6.1), respectively. Infection rates were calculated yearly for the DA and NA approach groups. Covariates were assessed and used in multivariate analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for risk of development of PJI with DA compared with NA approaches. In order to determine the effect of adopting a set of infection prevention protocols on PJI, we calculated ORs for PJI comparing patients undergoing THA for two distinct time periods: 2013 to 2014 and 2015 to 2016. These periods corresponded to before and after we implemented a set of perioperative infection protocols. Results. There were 1985 patients in the DA group and 4101 patients in the NA group. The overall rate of PJI at our institution during the study period was 0.82% (50/6086) and decreased from 0.96% (12/1245) in 2013 to 0.53% (10/1870) in 2016. There were 24 deep PJIs in the DA group (1.22%) and 26 deep PJIs in the NA group (0.63%; p = 0.023). After multivariate analysis, the DA approach was 2.2 times more likely to result in PJI than the NA approach (OR 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.9); p = 0.006) for the overall study period. Conclusion. We found a higher rate of PJI in DA versus NA approaches. Infection prevention protocols such as use of aspirin, dilute
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. 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.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
Using a systematic review, we investigated whether there is an
increased risk of post-operative infection in patients who have
received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip
for osteoarthritis prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Studies dealing with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection
to the hip and infection following subsequent THA were identified
from databases for the period between 1990 to 2013. Retrieved articles
were independently assessed for their methodological quality.Aims
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:
Revision total hip replacement (THR) for young
patients is challenging because of technical complexity and the potential
need for subsequent further revisions. We have assessed the survivorship,
functional outcome and complications of this procedure in patients
aged <
50 years through a large longitudinal series with consistent treatment
algorithms. Of 132 consecutive patients (181 hips) who underwent
revision THR, 102 patients (151 hips) with a mean age of 43 years
(22 to 50) were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 11 years (2 to 26)
post-operatively. We attempted to restore bone stock with allograft
where indicated. Using further revision for any reason as an end point,
the survival of the acetabular component was 71% ( This overall perspective on the mid- to long-term results is
valuable when advising young patients on the prospects of revision
surgery at the time of primary replacement. Cite this article:
