Fungal peri-prosthetic infections of the knee and hip are rare but likely to result in devastating complications. In this study we evaluated the results of their management using a single-stage exchange technique. Between 2001 and 2011, 14 patients (ten hips, four knees) were treated for a peri-prosthetic fungal infection. One patient was excluded because revision surgery was not possible owing to a large acetabular defect. One patient developed a further infection two months post-operatively and was excluded from the analysis. Two patients died of unrelated causes. After a mean of seven years (3 to 11) a total of ten patients were available for follow-up. One patient, undergoing revision replacement of the hip, had a post-operative dislocation. Another patient, undergoing revision replacement of the knee, developed a wound infection and required revision 29 months post-operatively following a peri-prosthetic femoral fracture. . The mean Harris hip score increased to 74 points (63 to 84; p < 0.02) in those undergoing revision replacement of the hip, and the mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score increased to 75 points (70 to 80; p < 0.01) in those undergoing revision replacement of the knee. . A single-stage revision following fungal peri-prosthetic infection is feasible, with an acceptable rate of a satisfactory outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:492–6

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. In the absence of an identified organism, single-stage revision is contraindicated in prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, no studies have examined the use of intra-articular antibiotics in combination with single-stage revision in these cases. In this study, we present the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion for treating culture-negative (CN) PJI. Methods. A retrospective analysis between 2009 and 2016 included 51 patients with CN PJI who underwent single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion; these were compared with 192 culture-positive (CP) patients. CN patients were treated according to a protocol including intravenous vancomycin and a direct intra-articular infusion of imipenem and vancomycin alternately used in the morning and afternoon. In the CP patients, pathogen-sensitive intravenous (IV) antibiotics were administered for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), and for resistant cases, additional intra-articular antibiotics were used. The infection healing rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score were compared between CN and CP groups. Results. Of 51 CN patients, 46 (90.2%) required no additional medical treatment for recurrent infection at a mean of 53.2 months (24 to 72) of follow-up. Impaired kidney function occurred in two patients, and one patient had a local skin rash. No significant difference in the infection control rate was observed between CN and CP PJIs (90.2% (46/51) versus 94.3% (181/192); p = 0.297). The HHS of the CN group showed no substantial difference from that of CP cases (79 versus 81; p = 0.359). However, the CN group showed a mean HSS inferior to that of the CP group (76 versus 80; p = 0.027). Conclusion. Single-stage revision with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion can be effective in treating CN PJI, and can achieve an infection control rate similar to that in CP patients. However, in view of systemic toxicity, local adverse reactions, and higher costs, additional strong evidence is needed to verify these treatment regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):336–344

Peri-prosthetic infection is amongst the most common causes of failure following total knee replacement (TKR). In the presence of established infection, thorough joint debridement and removal of all components is necessary following which new components may be implanted. This can be performed in one or two stages; two-stage revision with placement of an interim antibiotic-loaded spacer is regarded by many to be the standard procedure for eradication of peri-prosthetic joint infection. . We present our experience of a consecutive series of 50 single-stage revision TKRs for established deep infection performed between 1979 and 2010. There were 33 women and 17 men with a mean age at revision of 66.8 years (42 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 10.5 years (2 to 24). The mean time between the primary TKR and the revision procedure was 2.05 years (1 to 8). Only one patient required a further revision for recurrent infection, representing a success rate of 98%. Nine patients required further revision for aseptic loosening, according to microbiological testing of biopsies taken at the subsequent surgery. Three other patients developed a further septic episode but none required another revision. These results suggest that a single-stage revision can produce comparable results to a two-stage revision. Single-stage revision offers a reduction in costs as well as less morbidity and inconvenience for patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:759–64

This study reviews the predisposing features, the clinical, and laboratory findings at the time of diagnosis and the results of single-stage revision of prosthetic replacement of the elbow for infection. Deep infection occurred in six of 305 (1.9%) primary total elbow replacements. The mean follow-up after revision was 6.8 years (6 months to 16 years) and the mean age at the time of revision was 62.7 years (56 to 74). All six cases with infection had rheumatoid arthritis and had received steroid therapy. The infective organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Four of the six elbows had a developed radiolucency around one component or the other. Successful single-stage exchange arthroplasty was carried out with antibiotic-loaded cement in five of the six cases. In one, the revision prosthesis had to be removed following recurrence of the infection. The functional result was good in three elbows, fair in one, poor in one and fair in the resection arthroplasty

There have been only a few small studies of patients with an infected shoulder replacement treated with a single-stage exchange procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients (19 men and 16 women) with a peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder who were treated in this way. A total of 26 were available for clinical examination; three had died, two were lost to follow-up and four patients had undergone revision surgery. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (1.1 to 13.25), with an infection-free survival of 94%.

The organisms most commonly isolated intra-operatively were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes; two patients developed a recurrent infection. Three different types of prosthesis were used: a hemiarthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and reverse prosthesis. The mean Constant-Murley score at final follow-up was 43.3 (14 to 90) for patients with a hemiarthroplasty, 56 (40 to 88) for those with a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and 61 (7 to 90) for those with a reverse prosthesis. The mean hospital stay was 10.6 days (5 to 29).

Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:391–5.

Aims. 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. Patients and Methods. 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 (. sd. 12.7; 20 to 79). Results. Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment. Conclusion. Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396–402

Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. Results. The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m. 2. ; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. Conclusion. Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247–1253

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):474–480

Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aims. Gram-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been poorly studied despite its rapidly increasing incidence. Treatment with one-stage revision using intra-articular (IA) infusion of antibiotics may offer a reasonable alternative with a distinct advantage of providing a means of delivering the drug in high concentrations. Carbapenems are regarded as the last line of defense against severe Gram-negative or polymicrobial infection. This study presents the results of one-stage revision using intra-articular carbapenem infusion for treating Gram-negative PJI, and analyzes the characteristics of bacteria distribution and drug sensitivity. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients (22 hips and 11 knees) who underwent single-stage revision combined with IA carbapenem infusion between November 2013 and March 2020. The IA and intravenous (IV) carbapenem infusions were administered for a single Gram-negative infection, and IV vancomycin combined with IA carbapenems and vancomycin was applied for polymicrobial infection including Gram-negative bacteria. The bacterial community distribution, drug sensitivity, infection control rate, functional recovery, and complications were evaluated. Reinfection or death caused by PJI was regarded as a treatment failure. Results. Gram-negative PJI was mainly caused by Escherichia coli (8/34), Enterobacter cloacae (7/34), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (5/34). Seven cases (7/32) involved polymicrobial PJIs. The resistance rates of penicillin, cephalosporin, quinolones, and sulfonamides were > 10%, and all penicillin and partial cephalosporins (first and second generation) were > 30%. Of 32 cases, treatment failed to eradicate infection in only three cases (9.4%), at a mean follow-up of 55.1 months (SD 25 to 90). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score and Hospital for Special Surgery knee score at the most recent follow-up were 81 (62 to 91) and 79 (56 to 89), respectively. One patient developed a fistula, and another presented with a local rash on an infected joint. Conclusion. The use of IA carbapenem delivered alongside one-stage revision effectively controlled Gram-negative infection and obtained acceptable clinical outcomes with few complications. Notably, first- and second-generation cephalosporins and penicillin should be administrated with caution, due to a high incidence of resistance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):284–293

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

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

This review summarises the opinions and conclusions reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR) held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised, and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or osteitis. It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance as it does in infected hip arthroplasty

Aims. Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI. Material and Methods. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions. Results. The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions. . Conclusion. We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context.

Aims

Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit.

We have investigated nine patients with cemented Furlong (JRI, London, UK) titanium hip replacements who presented with early pain despite a well-fixed, aseptic prosthesis. All were followed up clinically and radiologically at regular intervals. Pain was located in the thigh and was worse at night. Radiographs showed cortical hypertrophy of the femur around the tip of the stem. Eight of the nine patients subsequently required single-stage revision using an uncemented prosthesis, which relieved the pain. At revision, the pH of the tip of the stem was found to be highly acidic with macroscopic evidence of corrosion consisting of multiple layers of titanium oxides when studied by X-ray dispersive analysis. Cemented titanium implants have a potential for crevice corrosion leading to cortical hypertrophy and intractable pain

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains an extremely challenging complication. We have focused on this issue more over the last decade than previously, but there are still many unanswered questions. We now have a workable definition that everyone should align to, but we need to continue to focus on identifying the organisms involved. Surgical strategies are evolving and care is becoming more patient-centred. There are some good studies under way. There are, however, still numerous problems to resolve, and the challenge of PJI remains a major one for the orthopaedic community. This annotation provides some up-to-date thoughts about where we are, and the way forward. There is still scope for plenty of research in this area.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1193–1195.