Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. Methods. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. Results. The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). Conclusion. DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464–471

Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) remains one option for the treatment of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) despite imperfect success rates. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin results in significantly increased local bone and tissue concentrations compared to systemic antibiotics alone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the addition of a single dose of IO regional antibiotics to our protocol at the time of DAIR would improve outcomes. Methods. A retrospective case series of 35 PJI TKA patients, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range (IQR) 61 to 75), who underwent DAIR combined with IO vancomycin (500 mg), was performed with minimum 12 months' follow-up. A total of 26 patients with primary implants were treated for acute perioperative or acute haematogenous infections. Additionally, nine patients were treated for chronic infections with components that were considered unresectable. Primary outcome was defined by no reoperations for infection, nor clinical signs or symptoms of PJI. Results. Mean follow-up for acute infection was 16.5 months (12.1 to 24.2) and 15.8 months (12 to 24.8) for chronic infections with unresectable components. Overall non-recurrence rates for acute infection was 92.3% (24/26) but only 44.4% (4/9) for chronic infections with unresectable components. The majority of patients remained on suppressive oral antibiotics. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host grade was a significant indicator of failure (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The addition of IO vancomycin at the time of DAIR was shown to be safe with improved results compared to current literature using standard DAIR without IO antibiotic administration. Use of this technique in chronic infections should be applied with caution. While these results are encouraging, this technique requires longer follow-up before widespread adoption. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):185–190

Aims. Current treatments of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are minimally effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. A murine PJI model of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) was used to test the hypothesis that PlySs2, a bacteriophage-derived lysin, can target S. aureus biofilm and address the unique challenges presented in this periprosthetic environment. Methods. The ability of PlySs2 and vancomycin to kill biofilm and colony-forming units (CFUs) on orthopaedic implants were compared using in vitro models. An in vivo murine PJI model of DAIR was used to assess the efficacy of a combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin on periprosthetic bacterial load. Results. PlySs2 treatment reduced 99% more CFUs and 75% more biofilm compared with vancomycin in vitro. A combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin in vivo reduced the number of CFUs on the surface of implants by 92% and in the periprosthetic tissue by 88%. Conclusion. PlySs2 lysin was able to reduce biofilm, target planktonic bacteria, and work synergistically with vancomycin in our in vitro models. A combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin also reduced bacterial load in periprosthetic tissue and on the surface of implants in a murine model of DAIR treatment for established PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):3–10

The June 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants.

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) pose significant challenges to patients and healthcare systems worldwide. The aim of this study was to estimate the health-economic burden of reimbursement payment in Europe for PJIs following primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. The calculation was based on health-economic modelling using data on primary hip and knee arthroplasties for the year 2019 from the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) and published infection rates to estimate the total number of hip and knee PJIs in 30 European countries. Revision procedures were stratified into: 1) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR); 2) one-stage exchange; and 3) two-stage revision procedures. The cases were then multiplied by the respective healthcare system reimbursement payments. Payment data were acquired from a survey of 13 countries (Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK) and extrapolated for the remaining countries. Results. In 2019, a total of 2,048,778 primary total joint replacements were performed (total hip arthroplasty (THA) = 1,147,316 and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) = 901,462), with an estimated 20,416 cases of PJIs (11,131 hip and 9,285 knee) in Europe. This results in an estimated total reimbursement burden of €346,262,026 for European healthcare systems. The breakdown for hip PJI reimbursement was €197,230,953 (€9,751,962 for DAIR procedures, €45,135,894 for one-stage revisions, and €142,343,097 for two-stage revisions). For knee PJIs, the analysis yielded a total reimbursement of €149,031,073 (€9,335,075 for DAIR procedures, €48,058,479 for one-stage revisions, and €91,637,518 for two-stage revisions). Conclusion. This is the first study to evaluate the health-economic burden of PJIs in Europe, revealing a substantial impact on healthcare systems with an estimated case load of 20,414 cases and overall reimbursement of €346,262,026 for primary THAs and TKAs performed in 2019. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(3):298–311

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a complex challenge in orthopaedic surgery associated with substantial morbidity and healthcare expenditures. The debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol is a viable treatment, offering several advantages over exchange arthroplasty. With the evolution of treatment strategies, considerable efforts have been directed towards enhancing the efficacy of DAIR, including the development of a phased debridement protocol for acute PJI management. This article provides an in-depth analysis of DAIR, presenting the outcomes of single-stage, two-stage, and repeated DAIR procedures. It delves into the challenges faced, including patient heterogeneity, pathogen identification, variability in surgical techniques, and antibiotics selection. Moreover, critical factors that influence the decision-making process between single- and two-stage DAIR protocols are addressed, including team composition, timing of the intervention, antibiotic regimens, and both anatomical and implant-related considerations. By providing a comprehensive overview of DAIR protocols and their clinical implications, this annotation aims to elucidate the advancements, challenges, and potential future directions in the application of DAIR for PJI management. It is intended to equip clinicians with the insights required to effectively navigate the complexities of implementing DAIR strategies, thereby facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1377–1384

Aims. To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. Methods. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). Results. Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptom state for the WOMAC function score (76% vs 55%; p = 0.002). In a multivariable analysis, the point estimate for the increase in WOMAC function score using the posterior approach was 10.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 17.2; p = 0.005), which is above the minimal clinically important improvement. The patients in the posterior approach group also reported better mean HRQoL scores and were more likely to be satisfied with their hip arthroplasty (77% vs 55%; p = 0.001). Conclusion. In patients treated with a single, successful DAIR procedure for deep infection of a primary THA, the use of the posterior approach in both primary surgery and DAIR was associated with less limping, better functional outcome, better HRQoL, and higher patient satisfaction compared with cases where both were performed using the transgluteal approach. The observed differences in functional outcome and patient satisfaction were clinically relevant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1662–1669

Aims. Fracture-related infection (FRI) is commonly classified based on the time of onset of symptoms. Early infections (< two weeks) are treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). For late infections (> ten weeks), guidelines recommend implant removal due to tolerant biofilms. For delayed infections (two to ten weeks), recommendations are unclear. In this study we compared infection clearance and bone healing in early and delayed FRI treated with DAIR in a rabbit model. Methods. Staphylococcus aureus was inoculated into a humeral osteotomy in 17 rabbits after plate osteosynthesis. Infection developed for one week (early group, n = 6) or four weeks (delayed group, n = 6) before DAIR (systemic antibiotics: two weeks, nafcillin + rifampin; four weeks, levofloxacin + rifampin). A control group (n = 5) received revision surgery after four weeks without antibiotics. Bacteriology of humerus, soft-tissue, and implants was performed seven weeks after revision surgery. Bone healing was assessed using a modified radiological union scale in tibial fractures (mRUST). Results. Greater bacterial burden in the early group compared to the delayed and control groups at revision surgery indicates a retraction of the infection from one to four weeks. Infection was cleared in all animals in the early and delayed groups at euthanasia, but not in the control group. Osteotomies healed in the early group, but bone healing was significantly compromised in the delayed and control groups. Conclusion. The duration of the infection from one to four weeks does not impact the success of infection clearance in this model. Bone healing, however, is impaired as the duration of the infection increases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(3):127–135

Aims. Although low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with disinfectants has been shown to effectively eliminate portions of biofilm in vitro, its efficacy in vivo remains uncertain. Our objective was to assess the antibiofilm potential and safety of LIPUS combined with 0.35% povidone-iodine (PI) in a rat debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A total of 56 male Sprague-Dawley rats were established in acute PJI models by intra-articular injection of bacteria. The rats were divided into four groups: a Control group, a 0.35% PI group, a LIPUS and saline group, and a LIPUS and 0.35% PI group. All rats underwent DAIR, except for Control, which underwent a sham procedure. General status, serum biochemical markers, weightbearing analysis, radiographs, micro-CT analysis, scanning electron microscopy of the prostheses, microbiological analysis, macroscope, and histopathology evaluation were performed 14 days after DAIR. Results. The group with LIPUS and 0.35% PI exhibited decreased levels of serum biochemical markers, improved weightbearing scores, reduced reactive bone changes, absence of viable bacteria, and decreased inflammation compared to the Control group. Despite the greater antibiofilm activity observed in the PI group compared to the LIPUS and saline group, none of the monotherapies were successful in preventing reactive bone changes or eliminating the infection. Conclusion. In the rat model of PJI treated with DAIR, LIPUS combined with 0.35% PI demonstrated stronger antibiofilm potential than monotherapy, without impairing any local soft-tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):332–341

Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aims. Arthroplasty surgery of the knee and hip is performed in two to three million patients annually. Periprosthetic joint infections occur in 4% of these patients. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) surgery aimed at cleaning the infected prosthesis often fails, subsequently requiring invasive revision of the complete prosthetic reconstruction. Infection-specific imaging may help to guide DAIR. In this study, we evaluated a bacteria-specific hybrid tracer (. 99m. Tc-UBI. 29-41. -Cy5) and its ability to visualize the bacterial load on femoral implants using clinical-grade image guidance methods. Methods. 99m. Tc-UBI. 29-41. -Cy5 specificity for Stapylococcus aureus was assessed in vitro using fluorescence confocal imaging. Topical administration was used to highlight the location of S. aureus cultured on femoral prostheses using fluorescence imaging and freehand single photon emission CT (fhSPECT) scans. Gamma counting and fhSPECT were used to quantify the bacterial load and monitor cleaning with chlorhexidine. Microbiological culturing helped to relate the imaging findings with the number of (remaining) bacteria. Results. Bacteria could be effectively stained in vitro and on prostheses, irrespective of the presence of biofilm. Infected prostheses revealed bacterial presence on the transition zone between the head and neck, and in the screw hole. Qualitative 2D fluorescence images could be complemented with quantitative 3D fhSPECT scans. Despite thorough chlorhexidine treatments, 28% to 44% of the signal remained present in the locations of the infection that were identified using imaging, which included 500 to 2,000 viable bacteria. Conclusion. The hybrid tracer . 99m. Tc-UBI. 29-41. -Cy5 allowed effective bacterial staining. Qualitative real-time fluorescence guidance could be effectively combined with nuclear imaging that enables quantitative monitoring of the effectiveness of cleaning strategies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(1):72–79

Aims. The aim of this study was to examine the indications for further surgery and the characteristics of the patients within one year of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA), providing an assessment of everyday clinical practice and outcomes in a high-volume country. Methods. All mUKAs which were performed between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021 and underwent further surgery within one year, from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (DKAR), were included. For primary procedures and reoperations, we received data on the characteristics of the patients, the indications for surgery, the type of procedure, and the sizes of the components individually, from each Danish private and public arthroplasty centre. All subsequent reoperations were recorded regardless of the time since the initial procedure. Results. A total of 2,431 primary mUKAs in 2,303 patients were reported to the DKAR during the study period and 55 patients (55 mUKAs; 2.3%; (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0)) underwent further surgery within one year. The most frequent indications for reoperation were periprosthetic fracture (n = 16; 0.7% (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1)), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 13; 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9)), and bearing dislocation (n = 9; 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.7)). Six periprosthetic fractures were treated with internal fixation, but five of these patients later underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Ten PJIs were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Due to persistent infection, four of these patients later underwent revision to a TKA. All nine bearing dislocations were treated with exchange of the liner, and seven occurred in patients who, based on their sex and height, probably had undersized femoral components. Conclusion. Reoperations are rare following mUKA in a high-volume country. The most frequent indications for further surgery were periprosthetic fracture, PJI, and bearing dislocation. Using internal fixation to treat periprosthetic fractures after mUKA gives poor results. Whether DAIR is an appropriate form of treatment for PJI in mUKAs, and how to ensure the effective eradication of infection in these patients, remains uncertain. Undersizing the femoral component might increase the risk of bearing dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(3):314–321

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. Methods. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. Results. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). Conclusion. HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):924–932

Aims. Pelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS). Methods. Retrospectively collected data of 38 patients (39 hips) with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom-made triflange acetabular component were analyzed. Minimum follow-up was two years (mean 5.1 years (2 to 11)). Results. There were eight subsequent surgical interventions. Two failures (5%) of the triflange acetabular components were both revised because of deep infection. There were seven (18%) patients with dislocation, and five (13%) of these were treated with a constraint liner. One patient had a debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure. In 34 (92%) hips the custom-made triflange component was considered stable, with a healed pelvic discontinuity with no aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. Mean HHS was 80.5 (48 to 96). Conclusion. The performance of the custom triflange implant in this study is encouraging, with high rates of discontinuity healing and osteointegration of the acetabular implant with no aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. However, complications are not uncommon, particularly instability which we successfully addressed with constrained liners. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):867–876

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss. Methods. Patients were identified from prospective data on all TKA patients with PJI following the primary procedure. Inclusion criteria were: revision for PJI with bone loss requiring reconstruction, and a minimum five years’ follow-up. Patients were followed up for recurrent infection and assessment of function. Tools used to assess function were Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS). Results. A total of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD 7.6), mean BMI of 33.3 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7), and median ASA grade of 2 (interquartile range 2 to 4). Mean time from primary to revision was 3.0 years (10 months to 8.3 years). At revision, six patients had discharging sinus and three patients had negative cultures from tissue samples or aspirates. Two patients developed recurrence of infection: one was treated successfully with antibiotic suppression and one underwent debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Mean AKSS scores at two years showed significant improvement from baseline (27.1 (SD 10.2 ) vs 80.3 (SD 14.8); p < 0.001). There was no significant change in mean AKSS scores between two and five years (80.3 (SD 14.8 ) vs 74.1 (SD 19.8); p = 0.109). Five-year OKS scores were not significantly different compared to two-year scores (36.17 (SD 3.7) vs 33.0 (SD 8.5); p = 0.081). Conclusion. ‘Two-in-one’ single-stage revision is effective for treating PJI following TKA with bone loss, providing patients with sustained improvements in outcomes and infection clearance up to five years post-procedure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):107–113

Aims. Deep surgical site infection (SSI) remains an unsolved problem after hip fracture. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) has become a mainstream treatment in elective periprosthetic joint infection; however, evidence for DAIR after infected hip hemiarthroplaty is limited. Methods. Patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty between March 2007 and August 2018 were reviewed. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify and adjust for risk factors for SSI, and to identify factors predicting a successful DAIR at one year. Results. A total of 3,966 patients were identified. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7% (51 patients (1.3%) with deep SSI, and 18 (0.45%) with superficial SSI). In all, 50 patients underwent revision surgery for infection (43 with DAIR, and seven with excision arthroplasty). After adjustment for other variables, only concurrent urinary tract infection (odds ratio (OR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 4.92; p < 0.001) and increasing delay to theatre for treatment of the fracture (OR 1.31 per day, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; p < 0.001) were predictors of developing a SSI, while a cemented arthroplasty was protective (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96; p = 0.031). In all, nine patients (20.9%) were alive at one year with a functioning hemiarthroplasty following DAIR, 20 (46.5%) required multiple surgical debridements after an initial DAIR, and 18 were converted to an excision arthroplasty due to persistent infection, with six were alive at one year. The culture of any gram-negative organism reduced success rates to 12.5% (no cases were successful with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas infection). Favourable organisms included Citrobacter and Proteus (100% cure rate). The all-cause mortality at one year after deep SSI was 55.87% versus 24.9% without deep infection. Conclusion. Deep infection remains a devastating complication regardless of the treatment strategy employed. Success rates of DAIR are poor compared to total hip arthroplasty, and should be reserved for favourable organisms in patients able to tolerate multiple surgical procedures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):958–965

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). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

Aims. Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all DAIRs, performed for confirmed infected primary hip arthropasty (n = 82) at out institution, between 1997 and 2013. Data recorded included full patient information and type of surgery. Outcome measures included complications, mortality, implant survivorship and functional outcome. Outcome was compared with two control groups matched for gender and age; a cohort of primary THAs (n = 120) and a cohort of two-stage revisions for infection (n = 66). Results. Mean age at DAIR was 69 years (33 to 87) and mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 17; standard deviation (. sd). 5). A total of 52 (63%) of DAIRs were for early PJI (less than six weeks). Greater success in the eradication of infection with DAIR was identified with early PJI, comprising an interval less than a week between onset of symptoms and exchange of modular components with the DAIR procedure. Eradication of infection, complications and re-operation rates were similar in the DAIR and two-stage revision groups. For hips with successful eradication of infection with DAIR, the five-year survival (98%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100) was similar to the primary THA group (98%; 95% CI 95 to 100) (n = 43; p = 0.3). The DAIR group had inferior mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) (38; 12 to 48) compared with the primary THA group (42; 15 to 48) (p = 0.02) but a significantly better mean OHS compared with the two-stage revision group (31; 0 to 48) (p = 0.008). Patients who required only one DAIR for eradication of infection had a similar mean OHS (41; 20 to 48) to the primary THA group (p = 0.2). Conclusion. The DAIR procedure is associated with a similar complication rate and ability to eradicate infection as two-stage revision. This study emphasises the need for exchange of modular components for improved chances of eradication of infection. This is the first study showing that DAIR is better than a two-stage revision regarding functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:614–22

Aims. The principle strategies of fracture-related infection (FRI) treatment are debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant retention (DAIR) or debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant removal/exchange. Increasing the period between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery is believed to be associated with higher failure rates after DAIR. However, a clear time-related cut-off has never been scientifically defined. This systematic review analyzed the influence of the interval between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery on success rates after DAIR. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection, investigating the outcome after DAIR procedures of long bone FRIs in clinical studies published until January 2020. Results. Six studies, comprising 276 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from this review showed that with a short duration of infection (up to three weeks) and under strict preconditions, retention of the implant is associated with high success rates of 86% to 100%. In delayed infections with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of three to ten weeks, absence of recurrent infection was reported in 82% to 89%. Data on late FRIs, with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of more than ten weeks, are scarce and a success rate of 67% was reported. Conclusion. Acute/early FRI, with a short duration of infection, can successfully be treated with DAIR up to ten weeks after osteosynthesis. The limited available data suggest that chronic/late onset FRI treated with DAIR may be associated with a higher rate of recurrence. Successful outcome is dependent on managing all aspects of the infection. Thus, time from fracture fixation is not the only factor that should be considered in treatment planning of FRI. Due to the heterogeneity of the available data, these conclusions have to be interpreted with caution. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):213–221