Aims

This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

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.

Aims. The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high-volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low-volume. Mean total hospital-specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. Results. High-volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While high-volume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 ($21 458 versus $20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 ($17 003 versus $16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher-volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high-volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p <  0.001). Conclusion. While a high-volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1611–17

Aims

The outcomes of patients with unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and infection-free implant survival in UPCs during presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA and TKA at mid-term follow-up.

Aims

Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs.

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine if a three-month course of microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduces the rate of failure due to further infection following two-stage revision for chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee. Methods. A total of 185 patients undergoing a two-stage revision in seven different centres were prospectively enrolled. Of these patients, 93 were randomized to receive microorganism-directed oral antibiotics for three months following reimplantation; 88 were randomized to receive no antibiotics, and four were withdrawn before randomization. Of the 181 randomized patients, 28 were lost to follow-up, six died before two years follow-up, and five with culture negative infections were excluded. The remaining 142 patients were followed for a mean of 3.3 years (2.0 to 7.6) with failure due to a further infection as the primary endpoint. Patients who were treated with antibiotics were also assessed for their adherence to the medication regime and for side effects to antibiotics. Results. Nine of 72 patients (12.5%) who received antibiotics failed due to further infection compared with 20 of 70 patients (28.6%) who did not receive antibiotics (p = 0.012). Five patients (6.9%) in the treatment group experienced adverse effects related to the administered antibiotics severe enough to warrant discontinuation. Conclusion. This multicentre randomized controlled trial showed that a three-month course of microorganism-directed, oral antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of failure due to further infection following a two-stage revision of total hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):3–9

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool. Methods. Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures. Results. The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation. Conclusion. Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):353–361

Aims. Calprotectin (CLP) is produced in neutrophils and monocytes and released into body fluids as a result of inflammation or infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of blood and synovial CLP in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. Blood and synovial fluid samples were collected prospectively from 195 patients undergoing primary or revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Patients were divided into five groups: 1) primary total hip and knee arthroplasty performed due to idiopathic osteoarthritis (OA; n = 60); 2) revision hip and knee arthroplasty performed due to aseptic failure of the implant (AR-TJR; n = 40); 3) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of chronic PJI awaiting surgery (n = 45); 4) patients who have finished the first stage of the PJI treatment with the use of cemented spacer and were qualified for replantation procedure (SR-TJR; n = 25), and 5) patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (RA; n = 25). CLP concentrations were measured quantitatively in the blood and synovial fluid using an immunoturbidimetric assay. Additionally, blood and synovial CRP, blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), and ESR were measured, and a leucocyte esterase (LE) strip test was performed. Results. Patients with PJI had higher CLP concentrations than those undergoing aseptic revision in blood (median PJI 2.14 mg/l (interquartile range (IQR) 1.37 to 3.56) vs AR-TJR 0.66 mg/l (IQR 0.3 to 0.83); p < 0.001) and synovial fluid samples (median PJI 20.46 mg/l (IQR 14.3 to 22.36) vs AR-TJR 0.7 mg/l (IQR 0.41 to 0.95); p < 0.001). With a cut-off value of 1.0 mg/l, blood CLP showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 93.3%, 87.5%, 89.4%, and 92.1%, respectively. For synovial fluid with a cut-off value of 1.5 mg/l, these were 95.6%, 95%, 95.5%, and 95%, respectively. Conclusion. This small study suggests that synovial and blood CLP are useful markers in chronic PJI diagnosis with similar or higher sensitivity and specificity than routinely used markers such as CRP, ESR, IL-6, and LE. CLP was not useful to differentiate patients with PJI from those with rheumatoid arthritis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):46–55

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

Aims. Failure of irrigation and debridement (I&D) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by numerous host, surgical, and pathogen-related factors. We aimed to develop and validate a practical, easy-to-use tool based on machine learning that may accurately predict outcome following I&D surgery taking into account the influence of numerous factors. Methods. This was an international, multicentre retrospective study of 1,174 revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) undergoing I&D for PJI between January 2005 and December 2017. PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. A total of 52 variables including demographics, comorbidities, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated using random forest machine learning analysis. The algorithm was then verified through cross-validation. Results. Of the 1,174 patients that were included in the study, 405 patients (34.5%) failed treatment. Using random forest analysis, an algorithm that provides the probability for failure for each specific patient was created. By order of importance, the ten most important variables associated with failure of I&D were serum CRP levels, positive blood cultures, indication for index arthroplasty other than osteoarthritis, not exchanging the modular components, use of immunosuppressive medication, late acute (haematogenous) infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, overlying skin infection, polymicrobial infection, and older age. The algorithm had good discriminatory capability (area under the curve = 0.74). Cross-validation showed similar probabilities comparing predicted and observed failures indicating high accuracy of the model. Conclusion. This is the first study in the orthopaedic literature to use machine learning as a tool for predicting outcomes following I&D surgery. The developed algorithm provides the medical profession with a tool that can be employed in clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Future studies should aid in further validating this tool on additional cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):11–19

Aims. In patients with a “dry” aspiration during the investigation of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), saline lavage is commonly used to obtain a sample for analysis. The aim of this study was to investigate prospectively the impact of saline lavage on synovial fluid analysis in revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing revision hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA) for any septic or aseptic indication were enrolled. Intraoperatively, prior to arthrotomy, the maximum amount of fluid possible was aspirated to simulate a dry tap (pre-lavage) followed by the injection with 20 ml of normal saline and re-aspiration (post-lavage). Pre- and post-lavage synovial white blood cell (WBC) count, percent polymorphonuclear cells (%PMN), and cultures were compared. Results. A total of 78 patients had data available for analysis; 17 underwent revision THA and 61 underwent revision TKA. A total of 16 patients met modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Pre- and post-lavage %PMNs were similar in septic patients (87% vs 85%) and aseptic patients (35% vs 39%). Pre- and post-lavage synovial fluid WBC count were far more disparate in septic (53,553 vs 8,275 WBCs) and aseptic (1,103 vs 268 WBCs) cohorts. At a cutoff of 80% PMN, the post-lavage aspirate had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 95%. At a cutoff of 3,000 WBCs, the post-lavage aspirate had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 98%. As the post-lavage synovial WBC count increased, the difference between pre- and post-lavage %PMN decreased (mean difference of 5% PMN in WBC < 3,000 vs mean difference 2% PMN in WBC > 3,000, p = 0.013). Of ten positive pre-lavage fluid cultures, only six remained positive post-lavage. Conclusion. While saline lavage aspiration significantly lowered the synovial WBC count, the %PMN remained similar, particularly at WBC counts of > 3,000. These findings suggest that in patients with a dry-tap, the %PMN of a saline lavage aspiration has reasonable sensitivity (75%) for the detection of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):138–144

Aims. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a major clinical challenge. Neutrophil CD64 index, Fc-gamma receptor 1 (FcγR1), plays an important role in mediating inflammation of bacterial infections and therefore could be a valuable biomarker for PJI. The aim of this study is to compare the neutrophil CD64 index in synovial and blood diagnostic ability with the standard clinical tests for discrimination PJI and aseptic implant failure. Methods. A total of 50 patients undergoing revision hip and knee arthroplasty were enrolled into a prospective study. According to Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, 25 patients were classified as infected and 25 as not infected. In all patients, neutrophil CD64 index and percentage of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN%) in synovial fluid, serum CRP, ESR, and serum CD64 index levels were measured preoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed for each biomarker. Results. Serum CD64 index showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.091). Synovial fluid CD64 index and PMN% discriminated good differentiation between groups of PJI and aseptic failure with AUC of 0.946 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.842 to 0.990) and 0.938 (95% CI 0.832 to 0.987) separately. The optimal threshold value of synovial CD64 index for the diagnosis of PJI was 0.85, with a sensitivity of 92.00%, a specificity of 96.00%, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 227.11. Conclusion. The present study demonstrates that CD64 index in synovial fluid could be a promising laboratory marker for screening PJI. The cut-off values of 0.85 for synovial CD64 index has the potential to distinguish aseptic failure from PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):463–469

The October 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Fracture risk among stroke survivors according to post-stroke disability status and stroke type; Noise-induced hearing loss: should surgeons be wearing ear protection during primary total joint replacement?; Intravenous dexamethasone in hip arthroscopy can enhance recovery; Patient-reported outcomes following periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee: a longitudinal, prospective observational study; When should surgery take place after weight loss?; Which type of surgery is the hardest physically and mentally?

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis.