Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 6 | Pages 1070 - 1077
1 Jun 2021
Hipfl C Mooij W Perka C Hardt S Wassilew GI

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results. Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 7 | Pages 859 - 866
1 Jul 2022
Innocenti M Smulders K Willems JH Goosen JHM van Hellemondt G

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 6 | Pages 749 - 758
1 Jun 2017
García-Rey E Cruz-Pardos A García-Cimbrelo E

Aims

To determine the effect of a change in design of a cementless ceramic acetabular component in fixation and clinical outcome after total hip arthroplasty

Patients and Methods

We compared 342 hips (302 patients) operated between 1999 and 2005 with a relatively smooth hydroxyapatite coated acetabular component (group 1), and 337 hips (310 patients) operated between 2006 and 2011 using a similar acetabular component with a macrotexture on the entire outer surface of the component (group 2). The mean age of the patients was 53.5 (14 to 70) in group 1 and 53.0 (15 to 70) in group 2. The mean follow-up was 12.7 years (10 to 17) for group 1 and 7.2 years (4 to 10) for group 2.