Aims. We aimed to determine the concentrations of synovial vancomycin and meropenem in patients treated by single-stage revision combined with intra-articular infusion following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), thereby validating this drug delivery approach. Methods. We included 14 patients with PJI as noted in their medical records between November 2021 and August 2022, comprising eight hip and seven knee joint infections, with one patient experiencing bilateral knee infections. The patients underwent single-stage revision surgery, followed by intra-articular infusion of vancomycin and meropenem (50,000 µg/ml). Synovial fluid samples were collected to assess antibiotic concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography. Results. The peak concentrations of vancomycin and meropenem in the joint cavity were observed at one hour post-injection, with mean values of 14,933.9 µg/ml (SD 10,176.3) and 5,819.1 µg/ml (SD 6,029.8), respectively. The trough concentrations at 24 hours were 5,495.0 µg/ml (SD 2,360.5) for vancomycin and 186.4 µg/ml (SD 254.3) for meropenem. The half-life of vancomycin was 6 hours, while that of meropenem ranged between 2 and 3.5 hours. No significant adverse events related to the antibiotic administration were observed. Conclusion. This method can achieve sustained high antibiotic concentrations within the joint space, exceeding the reported minimum biofilm eradication concentration. Our study highlights the remarkable effectiveness of intra-articular antibiotic infusion in delivering high intra-articular concentrations of antibiotics. The method provided sustained high antibiotic concentrations within the joint cavity, and no severe side-effects were observed. These findings offer evidence to improve clinical treatment strategies. However, further validation is required through studies with larger sample sizes and higher levels of evidence. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(10):535–545

Aims

This study aimed to assess the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with combined intravenous (IV) and topical antibiotic therapy in patients undergoing treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), utilizing the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria for classification.

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims

This study evaluated the definitions developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013, for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

This study aimed to explore whether serum combined with synovial interleukin-6 (IL-6) measurement can improve the accuracy of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis, and to establish the cut-off values of IL-6 in serum and synovial fluid in detecting chronic PJI.

Aims

This pilot study tested the performance of a rapid assay for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which measures synovial fluid calprotectin from total hip and knee revision patients.

Objectives

Bone void fillers are increasingly being used for dead space management in arthroplasty revision surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of calcium sulphate bone void filler (CS-BVF) on the damage and wear of total knee arthroplasty using experimental wear simulation.

Aims

Calcium sulphate has traditionally been used as a filler of dead space arising during surgery. Various complications have been described following the use of Stimulan bio-absorbable calcium sulphate beads. This study is a prospective observational study to assess the safety profile of these beads when used in revision arthroplasty, comparing the complication rates with those reported in the literature.

Objectives

We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI.