Aims

Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Aims

Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI.

Objectives

Initial stability of tibial trays is crucial for long-term success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in both primary and revision settings. Rotating platform (RP) designs reduce torque transfer at the tibiofemoral interface. We asked if this reduced torque transfer in RP designs resulted in subsequently reduced micromotion at the cemented fixation interface between the prosthesis component and the adjacent bone.

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

The Unified Classification System (UCS) was introduced because of a growing need to have a standardised universal classification system of periprosthetic fractures. It combines and simplifies many existing classification systems, and can be applied to any fracture around any partial or total joint replacement occurring during or after operation. Our goal was to assess the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the UCS in association with knee replacement when classifying fractures affecting one or more of the femur, tibia or patella.

We used an international panel of ten orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty fellowship training and expertise in adult hip and knee reconstruction (‘experts’) and ten residents of orthopaedic surgery in the last two years of training (‘pre-experts’). They each received 15 radiographs for evaluation. After six weeks they evaluated the same radiographs again but in a different order.

The reliability was assessed using the Kappa and weighted Kappa values.

The Kappa values for inter-observer reliability for the experts and the pre-experts were 0.741 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.707 to 0.774) and 0.765 (95% CI 0.733 to 0.797), respectively. The weighted Kappa values for intra-observer reliability for the experts and pre-experts were 0.898 (95% CI 0.846 to 0.950) and 0.878 (95% CI 0.815 to 0.942) respectively.

The UCS has substantial inter-observer reliability and ‘near perfect’ intra-observer reliability when used for periprosthetic fractures in association with knee replacement in the hands of experienced and inexperienced users.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1669–73.

Peri-prosthetic fracture after joint replacement in the lower limb is associated with significant morbidity. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of peri-prosthetic fracture after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) over a ten-year period using a population-based linked dataset.

Between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2008, 52 136 primary THRs, 8726 revision THRs, 44 511 primary TKRs, and 3222 revision TKRs were performed. Five years post-operatively, the rate of fracture was 0.9% after primary THR, 4.2% after revision THR, 0.6% after primary TKR and 1.7% after revision TKR. Comparison of survival analysis for all primary and revision arthroplasties showed peri-prosthetic fractures were more likely in females, patients aged > 70 and after revision arthroplasty.

Female patients aged > 70 should be warned of a significantly increased risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after hip or knee replacement. The use of adjuvant medical treatment to reduce the effect of peri-prosthetic osteoporosis may be a direction of research for these patients.

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.

Allografts of bone from the femoral head are often used in orthopaedic procedures. Although the donated heads are thoroughly tested microscopically before release by the bone bank, some surgeons take additional cultures in the operating theatre before implantation. There is no consensus about the need to take these cultures. We retrospectively assessed the clinical significance of the implantation of positive-cultured bone allografts. The contamination rate at retrieval of the allografts was 6.4% in our bone bank. Intra-operative cultures were taken from 426 femoral head allografts before implantation; 48 (11.3%) had a positive culture. The most frequently encountered micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Deep infection occurred in two of the 48 patients (4.2%). In only one was it likely that the same micro-organism caused the contamination and the subsequent infection.

In our study, the rate of infection in patients receiving positive-cultured allografts at implantation was not higher than the overall rate of infection in allograft surgery suggesting that the positive cultures at implantation probably represent contamination and that the taking of additional cultures is not useful.

Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.