Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 5 | Pages 321 - 330
9 May 2023
Lenguerrand E Whitehouse MR Beswick AD Kunutsor SK Webb JCJ Mehendale S Porter M Blom AW

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


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 10 | Pages 690 - 699
4 Oct 2022
Lenguerrand E Whitehouse MR Kunutsor SK Beswick AD Baker RP Rolfson O Reed MR Blom AW

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


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 9 | Pages 554 - 562
1 Sep 2020
Masters J Metcalfe D Ha JS Judge A Costa ML

Aims

This study explores the reported rate of surgical site infection (SSI) after hip fracture surgery in published studies concerning patients treated in the UK.

Methods

Studies were included if they reported on SSI after any type of surgical treatment for hip fracture. Each study required a minimum of 30 days follow-up and 100 patients. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was expressed using the I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) system.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 12 | Pages 848 - 856
1 Dec 2020
Ramalhete R Brown R Blunn G Skinner J Coathup M Graney I Sanghani-Kerai A

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating condition with a substantial socioeconomic burden. A novel autologous blood glue (ABG) has been developed, which can be prepared during surgery and sprayed onto prostheses at the time of implantation. The ABG can potentially provide an antimicrobial coating which will be effective in preventing PJI, not only by providing a physical barrier but also by eluting a well-known antibiotic. Hence, this study aimed to assess the antimicrobial effectiveness of ABG when impregnated with gentamicin and stem cells.

Methods

Gentamicin elution from the ABG matrix was analyzed and quantified in a time-dependent manner. The combined efficiency of gentamicin and ABG as an anti-biofilm coating was investigated on titanium disks.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 1 | Pages 79 - 84
1 Jan 2018
Tsang STJ McHugh MP Guerendiain D Gwynne PJ Boyd J Simpson AHRW Walsh TS Laurenson IF Templeton KE

Objectives

Nasal carriers of Staphylococcus (S.) aureus (MRSA and MSSA) have an increased risk for healthcare-associated infections. There are currently limited national screening policies for the detection of S. aureus despite the World Health Organization’s recommendations. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of molecular and culture techniques in S. aureus screening, determine the cause of any discrepancy between the diagnostic techniques, and model the potential effect of different diagnostic techniques on S. aureus detection in orthopaedic patients.

Methods

Paired nasal swabs for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay and culture of S. aureus were collected from a study population of 273 orthopaedic outpatients due to undergo joint arthroplasty surgery.