Aims.
Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. Results. The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m. 2. ; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. Conclusion. Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the
Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics
into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage
exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases.
Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment,
there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher
success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange
potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need
for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time.
In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-,
peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected,
and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic
testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification
of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and
respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics
to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic
elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment
plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies
on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including
cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement
of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic
antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to
14 days. Cite this article:
One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups.Aims
Methods
Current diagnostic tools are not always able to effectively identify periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Recent studies suggest that circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) undergo changes under pathological conditions such as infection. The aim of this study was to analyze miRNA expression in hip arthroplasty PJI patients. This was a prospective pilot study, including 24 patients divided into three groups, with eight patients each undergoing revision of their hip arthroplasty due to aseptic reasons, and low- and high-grade PJI, respectively. The number of intraoperative samples and the incidence of positive cultures were recorded for each patient. Additionally, venous blood samples and periarticular tissue samples were collected from each patient to determine miRNA expressions between the groups. MiRNA screening was performed by small RNA-sequencing using the miRNA next generation sequencing (NGS) discovery (miND) pipeline.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution. We identified 33 patients who underwent treatment for PJIs of the hip between January 2010 and December 2019 using our institutional joint registry. Mean age was 82 years (80 to 90), with 19 females (57%) and a mean BMI of 26 kg/m2 (17 to 41). Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was 3 (1 to 4) and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (4 to 10). Leading pathogens included coagulase-negative Staphylococci (45%) and Aims
Methods
Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction. Between 2014 and 2023, 79 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months (SD 22; 9 to 103) were included. Functional outcome was measured using the Harris Hip Score and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). PPR revisions were defined as an endpoint, and subgroups were analyzed to determine risk factors.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of liner malseating in two commonly used dual-mobility (DM) designs. Secondary aims included determining the risk of dislocation, survival, and clinical outcomes. We retrospectively identified 256 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) that included a DM component (144 Stryker MDM and 112 Zimmer-Biomet G7) in 233 patients, performed between January 2012 and December 2019. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed independently for malseating of the liner by five reviewers. The mean age of the patients at the time of THA was 66 years (18 to 93), 166 (65%) were female, and the mean BMI was 30 kg/m2 (17 to 57). The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (2.0 to 9.2).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to examine the implant accuracy of custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants offer an option to achieve a reconstruction in cases with severe acetabular bone loss. By analyzing implant deviation in CT and radiograph imaging and correlating early clinical complications, we aimed to optimize the usage of custom-made implants. A consecutive series of 45 (2014 to 2019) PPRs for Paprosky III defects at rTHA were analyzed comparing the preoperative planning CT scans used to manufacture the implants with postoperative CT scans and radiographs. The anteversion (AV), inclination (IC), deviation from the preoperatively planned implant position, and deviation of the centre of rotation (COR) were explored. Early postoperative complications were recorded, and factors for malpositioning were sought. The mean follow-up was 30 months (SD 19; 6 to 74), with four patients lost to follow-up.Aims
Methods
Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants. Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (Aims
Patients and Methods
Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint
infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques
into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms
are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial
agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing,
a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation
and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic
joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents
the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint
infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin
resistant staphylococci. Cite this article:
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines
for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines,
if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices
and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in
the United States. Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic
joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines. Cite this article:
To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention
(DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)
and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was
evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less
than two years. Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our
hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to
criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published
algorithm.Aims
Patients and Methods
Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard
for treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection after total hip replacement
(THR). In the first stage, all components and associated cement
if present are removed, an aggressive debridement is undertaken
including a complete synovectomy, and an antibiotic-loaded cement
spacer is put in place. Patients are then treated with six weeks
of parenteral antibiotics, followed by an ‘antibiotic free period’
to help ensure the infection has been eradicated. If the clinical
evaluation and serum inflammatory markers suggest the infection
has resolved, then the second stage can be completed, which involves
removal of the cement spacer, repeat debridement, and placement
of a new THR. Cite this article:
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article:
