One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.Aims
Methods
Septic arthritis of the hip often leads to irreversible osteoarthritis (OA) and the requirement for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to report the mid-term risk of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic revision, and reoperation in patients with a past history of septic arthritis who underwent THA, compared with a control group of patients who underwent THA for OA. We retrospectively identified 256 THAs in 244 patients following septic arthritis of the native hip, which were undertaken between 1969 and 2016 at a single institution. Each case was matched 1:1, based on age, sex, BMI, and year of surgery, to a primary THA performed for OA. The mean age and BMI were 58 years (35 to 84) and 31 kg/m2 (18 to 48), respectively, and 100 (39%) were female. The mean follow-up was 11 years (2 to 39).Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
Recurrent infection following two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty
(THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication.
The purpose of this study was to report the survival of repeat two-stage
revision hip arthroplasty, describe complications, and identify
risk factors for failure. We retrospectively identified 19 hips (19 patients) that had
undergone repeat two-stage revision THA for infection between 2000
to 2013. There were seven female patients (37%) and the mean age
was 60 years (30 to 85). Survival free from revision was assessed
via Kaplan–Meier analysis. The patients were classified according
to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) system, and risk
factors for failure were identified. Mean follow-up was four years
(2 to 11).Aims
Patients and Methods
The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years.Aims
Patients and Methods
Periprosthetic infection following total hip replacement can be a catastrophic complication for the patient. The treatments available include single-stage exchange, and two-stage exchange. We present a series of 50 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of infected total hip replacement who were assessed according to a standardised protocol. Of these, 11 underwent single-stage revision arthroplasty with no recurrence of infection at a mean of 6.8 years follow-up (5.5 to 8.8). The remaining 39 underwent two-stage revision, with two recurrences of infection successfully treated by a second two-stage procedure. At five years, significant differences were found in the mean Harris Hip Scores (single-stage 87.8; two-stage 75.5; p = 0.0003) and in a visual analogue score for satisfaction (8.6; 6.9; p = 0.001) between the single- and two-stage groups. Single-stage exchange is successful in eradicating periprosthetic infection and results in excellent functional and satisfaction scores. Identification of patients suitable for the single-stage procedure allows individualisation of care and provides as many as possible with the correct strategy in successfully tackling their periprosthetic infection
