The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
Aims. Vancomycin is commonly added to acrylic bone cement during revision
arthroplasty surgery. Proprietary cement preparations containing
vancomycin are available, but are significantly more expensive.
We investigated whether the elution of antibiotic from ‘home-made’
cement containing vancomycin was comparable with more expensive
commercially available vancomycin impregnated cement. Materials and Methods. A total of 18 cement discs containing either proprietary CopalG+V;
or ‘home-made’ CopalR+G with vancomycin added by hand, were made.
Each disc contained the same amount of antibiotic (0.5 g gentamycin,
2 g vancomycin) and was immersed in ammonium acetate buffer in a
sealed container. Fluid from each container was sampled at eight
time points over a two-week period. The concentrations of gentamicin
and vancomycin in the fluid were analysed using high performance
liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Results. The highest peak concentrations of antibiotic were observed from
the ‘home-made’ cements containing vancomycin, added as in the operating
theatre. The overall elution of antibiotic was, fivefold (vancomycin)
and twofold (gentamicin) greater from the ‘home-made’ mix compared
with the commercially mixed cement. The use of a vacuum during mixing
had no significant effect on antibiotic elution in any of the samples. Conclusion. These findings suggest that the addition of 2 g vancomycin powder
to gentamicin-impregnated bone cement by hand significantly increases
the elution of both antibiotics compared with commercially prepared
cements containing vancomycin. We found no significant advantages
of using expensive commercially produced vancomycin-impregnated cement
and recommend the addition of
