Aims. Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,550 primary TKAs performed at an orthopaedic hospital between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PJI occurring within 90 days of surgery. Patients were stratified into two groups (cefazolin vs non-cephalosporin) based on their preoperative antibiotic. All patients also received the VIP protocol at wound closure. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and identify the odds ratio of PJI. Results. In all, 10,484 knees (90.8%) received cefazolin, while 1,066 knees (9.2%) received a non-cephalosporin agent (either vancomycin or clindamycin) as preoperative prophylaxis. The rate of PJI in the cefazolin group (0.5%; 48/10,484) was significantly lower than the rate of PJI in the non-cephalosporin group (1.0%; 11/1,066) (p = 0.012). After controlling for confounding variables, the odds ratio (OR) of developing a PJI was increased in the non-cephalosporin cohort compared to the cefazolin cohort (OR 2.389; 1.2 to 4.6); p = 0.01). Conclusion. Despite the use of topical irrigant solutions and addition of local antimicrobial agents, the use of a non-cephalosporin perioperative antibiotic continues to be associated with a greater risk of TKA PJI compared to cefazolin. Strategies that increase the proportion of patients receiving cefazolin rather than non-cephalosporin alternatives must be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):35–41

Aims. Intra-articular administration of antibiotics during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may represent a safe, cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Vancomycin with an aminoglycoside provides antimicrobial cover for most organisms isolated from acute PJI after TKA. However, the intra-articular doses required to achieve sustained therapeutic intra-articular levels while remaining below toxic serum levels is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the intra-articular and serum levels of vancomycin and tobramycin over the first 24 hours postoperatively after intra-articular administration in primary cementless TKA. Methods. A prospective cohort study was performed. Patients were excluded if they had poor renal function, known allergic reaction to vancomycin or tobramycin, received intravenous vancomycin, or were scheduled for same-day discharge. All patients received 600 mg tobramycin and 1 g of vancomycin powder suspended in 25 cc of normal saline and injected into the joint after closure of the arthrotomy. Serum from peripheral venous blood and drain fluid samples were collected at one, four, and 24 hours postoperatively. All concentrations are reported in µg per ml. Results. A total of 22 patients were included in final analysis. At one, four, and 24 hours postoperatively, mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) serum concentrations were 2.4 (0.7 to 4.1), 5.0 (3.1 to 6.9), and 4.8 (2.8 to 6.9) for vancomycin and 4.9 (3.4 to 6.3), 7.0 (5.8 to 8.2), and 1.3 (0.8 to 1.8) for tobramycin; intra-articular concentrations were 1,900.6 (1,492.5 to 2,308.8), 717.9 (485.5 to 950.3), and 162.2 (20.5 to 304.0) for vancomycin and 2,105.3 (1,389.9 to 2,820.6), 403.2 (266.6 to 539.7), and 98.8 (0 to 206.5) for tobramycin. Conclusion. Intra-articular administration of 1 g of vancomycin and 600 mg of tobramycin as a solution after closure of the arthrotomy in primary cementless TKA achieves therapeutic intra-articular concentrations over the first 24 hours postoperatively and does not reach sustained toxic levels in peripheral blood. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1702–1708

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. The number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) that are performed is expected to increase. However, previous reports of the causes of failure after TKA are limited in that they report the causes at specific institutions, which are often dependent on referral patterns. Our aim was to report the most common indications for re-operations and revisions in a large series of posterior-stabilised TKAs undertaken at a single institution, excluding referrals from elsewhere, which may bias the causes of failure. Patients and Methods. A total of 5098 TKAs which were undertaken between 2000 and 2012 were included in the study. Re-operations, revisions with modular component exchange, and revisions with non-modular component replacement or removal were identified from the medical records. The mean follow-up was five years (two to 12). Results. The Kaplan-Meier ten-year survival without a re-operation, modular component revision and non-modular component revision was 95.7%, 99.3% and 95.3%, respectively. The most common indications for a re-operation were: post-operative stiffness (58%), delayed wound healing (21%), and patellar clunk (11%). The indications for isolated modular component revision were acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (64%) and instability (36%). The most common indications for non-modular component revision were chronic PJI (52%), aseptic loosening (17%), periprosthetic fracture (10%), and instability (10%). Conclusion. Post-operative stiffness remains the most common indication for re-operation after TKA. Infection is the most common indication for modular and non-modular component revision. Aseptic loosening was not an uncommon cause of failure, however, it was much less common than in national registry and non-registry data. Focusing on posterior-stabilised TKAs initially performed at our institution allowed for an accurate assessment of the causes of failure in a contemporary specialty practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:647–52