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.

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