One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.Aims
Methods
One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups.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:
The aim of this study was to assess the role
of synovial C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic
hip infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid from 89
patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and measured synovial
CRP, serum CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial white
blood cell (WBC) count and synovial percentages of polymorphonuclear
neutrophils (PMN). Patients were classified as septic or aseptic
by means of clinical, microbiological, serum and synovial fluid
findings. The high viscosity of the synovial fluid precluded the
analyses in nine patients permitting the results in 80 patients
to be studied. There was a significant difference in synovial CRP
levels between the septic (n = 21) and the aseptic (n = 59) cohort.
According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, a synovial
CRP threshold of 2.5 mg/l had a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity
of 93.3%. The area under the curve was 0.96. Compared with serum
CRP and ESR, synovial CRP showed a high diagnostic value. According
to these preliminary results, synovial CRP may be a useful parameter
in diagnosing chronic periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article:
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article:
Femoral revision after cemented total hip replacement
(THR) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement
removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently
inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem. Femoral impaction allografting has been widely used in revision
surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur. In combination
with a primary cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for femoral
bone restoration through incorporation and remodelling of the impacted
morsellized bone graft by the host skeleton. Cavitary bone defects
affecting meta-physis and diaphysis leading to a wide femoral shaft,
are ideal indications for this technique. Cancellous allograft bone
chips of 1 mm to 2 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal
with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into
the femoral canal a prosthesis dummy of the same dimensions of the definitive
cemented stem is driven into the femur to ensure that the chips
are very firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is cemented into
the neo-medullary canal using bone cement. To date several studies have shown favourable results with this
technique, with some excellent long-term results reported in independent
clinical centres worldwide. Cite this article:
Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics
into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage
exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases.
Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment,
there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher
success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange
potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need
for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time.
In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-,
peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected,
and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic
testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification
of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and
respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics
to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic
elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment
plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies
on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including
cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement
of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic
antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to
14 days. Cite this article: