Aims. Of growing concern in arthroplasty is the emergence of atypical infections, particularly Cutibacterium (formerly Propionibacterium) sp. infections. Currently, the dermal colonization rate of Cutibacterium about the hip is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate colonization rates of Cutibacterium sp. at locations approximating anterior and posterolateral approaches to the hip joint. Methods. For this non-randomized non-blinded study, 101 adult patients scheduled for hip or knee surgery were recruited. For each, four 3 mm dermal punch biopsies were collected after administration of anaesthesia, but prior to antibiotics. Prebiopsy skin preparation consisted of a standardized preoperative 2% chlorhexidine skin cleansing protocol and an additional 70% isopropyl alcohol mechanical skin scrub immediately prior to biopsy collection. Two skin samples 10 cm apart were collected from a location approximating a standard direct anterior skin incision, and two samples 10 cm apart were collected from a lateral skin incision (suitable for posterior, direct-lateral, or anterolateral approaches). Samples were cultured for two weeks using a protocol optimized for Cutibacterium. Results. A total of 23 out of 404 cultures (collected from 101 patients) were positive for a microorganism, with a total of 22 patients having a positive culture (22%). Overall, 15 of the cultures in 14 patients were positive for Cutibacterium sp. (65%), of which Cutibacterium acnes comprised the majority (n = 13; 87%). Other isolated microorganisms include coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n = 6), Clostridium (n = 1), and Corynebacterium (n = 1). Of all positive cultures, 15 were obtained from the anterior location (65%), of which seven (60%) were from the most proximal biopsy location. However, these findings were not statistically significant (anterior vs lateral, p = 0.076; proximal vs distal, p =0.238). Conclusion. Approximately 14% (14/101) of the patients demonstrated a positive Cutibacterium colonization about the hip, the majority anteriorly. Given the high colonization rate of Cutibacterium, alternative skin preparations for total hip arthroplasty should be considered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):52–56

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Overall, several miRNAs in plasma and tissue were identified to be progressively deregulated according to ongoing PJI. When comparing the plasma samples, patients with a high-grade infection showed significantly higher expression levels for hsa-miR-21-3p, hsa-miR-1290, and hsa-miR-4488, and lower expression levels for hsa-miR-130a-3p and hsa-miR-451a compared to the aseptic group. Furthermore, the high-grade group showed a significantly higher regulated expression level of hsa-miR-1260a and lower expression levels for hsa-miR-26a-5p, hsa-miR-26b-5p, hsa-miR-148b-5p, hsa-miR-301a-3p, hsa-miR-451a, and hsa-miR-454-3p compared to the low-grade group. No significant differences were found between the low-grade and aseptic groups. When comparing the tissue samples, the high-grade group showed significantly higher expression levels for 23 different miRNAs and lower expression levels for hsa-miR-2110 and hsa-miR-3200-3p compared to the aseptic group. No significant differences were found in miRNA expression between the high- and low-grade groups, as well as between the low-grade and aseptic groups. Conclusion. With this prospective pilot study, we were able to identify a circulating miRNA signature correlating with high-grade PJI compared to aseptic patients undergoing hip arthroplasty revision. Our data contribute to establishing miRNA signatures as potential novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for PJI. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):479–488

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results. Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077

Aims. We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 96 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI. The mean follow-up was 90 months (SD 32). Septic failure was assessed using a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any further surgery undertaken for aseptic mechanical causes was considered as aseptic failure. The cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis was used to predict the risk of septic failure. A regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic failure. The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was also analyzed. Results. There were 23 septic failures at final follow-up, with a cumulative incidence of 14% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8% to 22%) at one year, 18% (95% CI 11% to 27%) at two years, 22% (95% CI 14% to 31%) at five years, and 23% (95% CI 15% to 33%) at ten years. Having at least one positive culture (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.19 to 4.74); p = 0.013), or a positive intraoperative frozen section (HR 2.55 (IQR 1.06 to 6.15); p = 0.037) was significantly associated with septic failure after reimplantation. With dislocation being the most common cause of aseptic revision (5.2%), the cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 1% (95% CI 0% to 5%) at one year, 6% (95% CI 1% to 8%) at five years, and 8% (95%CI 3% to 17%) at ten years. Conclusion. If there is no recurrent infection in the five years following reimplantation, the chances of further infection thereafter are remote. While the results of a frozen section may be a reliable guide to the timing of reimplantation, intraoperative culture has, currently, only prognostic value. Surgeons should be aware that instability remains a potential indication for further revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):79–86

We determined the rate of contamination of donated femoral heads at primary hip arthroplasty within a single region between July 1992 and July 2001. We established the null hypothesis that culture results played no role in predicting early failure of the joint because of infection. The rate of contamination was 9%. A positive culture, at the time of retrieval, was found in 367 of 4045 femoral heads. Coagulase-negative staphylococcus was isolated in 77% of the positive cases. At a minimum follow-up of one year, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications or of revision of age-matched patients whose femoral heads had a positive culture compared with those whose femoral heads were sterile. Our findings confirm that culture of the femoral head plays no part in determining future failure of joint replacement in the donor

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Of the 1,174 patients that were included in the study, 405 patients (34.5%) failed treatment. Using random forest analysis, an algorithm that provides the probability for failure for each specific patient was created. By order of importance, the ten most important variables associated with failure of I&D were serum CRP levels, positive blood cultures, indication for index arthroplasty other than osteoarthritis, not exchanging the modular components, use of immunosuppressive medication, late acute (haematogenous) infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, overlying skin infection, polymicrobial infection, and older age. The algorithm had good discriminatory capability (area under the curve = 0.74). Cross-validation showed similar probabilities comparing predicted and observed failures indicating high accuracy of the model. Conclusion. This is the first study in the orthopaedic literature to use machine learning as a tool for predicting outcomes following I&D surgery. The developed algorithm provides the medical profession with a tool that can be employed in clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Future studies should aid in further validating this tool on additional cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):11–19

Aims. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty (THA) can present with pain and osteolysis. The Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) has provided criteria for the diagnosis of PJI. The aim of our study was to analyze the utility of F18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) CT scan in the preoperative diagnosis of septic loosening in THA, based on the current MSIS definition of prosthetic joint infection. Patients and Methods. A total of 130 painful unilateral cemented THAs with a mean follow-up of 5.17 years (. sd. 1.12) were included in this prospective study. The mean patient age was 67.5 years (. sd. 4.85). Preoperative evaluation with inflammatory markers, aspiration, and an F18 FDG PET scan were performed. Diagnostic utility tests were also performed, based on the MSIS criteria for PJI and three samples positive on culture alone. Results. The mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and white cell count were 47.83 mm/hr, 25.21 mg/l, and 11.05 × 10. 9. /l, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value, and false-positive rate of FDG PET compared with MSIS criteria were 94.87%, 38.46 %, 56.38%, 94.59 %, and 60.21%, respectively. The false-positive rate of FDG PET compared with culture alone was 77.4%. Conclusion. FDG PET has a definitive role in the preoperative evaluation of suspected PJI. This the first study to evaluate its utility based on MSIS criteria and compare it with microbiology results alone. However, FDG PET has a high false-positive rate. Therefore, we suggest that F18 FDG PET is useful in confirming the absence of infection, but if positive, may not be confirmatory of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:910–914

Aims

This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection.

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

A revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has a major effect on the patient’s quality of life, including walking capacity. The objective of this case control study was to investigate the histological and ultrastructural changes to the gluteus medius tendon (GMED) in patients revised due to a PJI, and to compare it with revision THAs without infection performed using the same lateral approach.

Aims

The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Aims

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 report 11 patients having revision of total hip arthroplasty using massive structural allografts for failure due to sepsis and associated bone loss. All patients had a two-stage reconstruction and the mean follow-up was 47.8 months (24 to 72). Positive cultures were obtained at the first stage in nine of the 11 patients, with Staphylococcus epidermidis being the most common organism. The other two patients had draining sinuses with negative cultures. There was no recurrence of infection in any patient. The mean increase in the modified Harris hip score was 45 and all the grafts appeared to have united to host bone. Two patients required additional procedures, but only one was related to the allograft. Complications included an incomplete sciatic nerve palsy and one case of graft resorption. Our results support the use of massive allografts in failed septic hip arthroplasty in which there is associated bone loss

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution.

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

Aims

“Get It Right First Time” (GIRFT) and NHS England’s Best Practice Tariff (BPT) have published directives advising that patients over the ages of 65 (GIRFT) and 69 years (BPT) receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) should receive cemented implants and have brought in financial penalties if this policy is not observed. Despite this, worldwide, uncemented component use has increased, a situation described as a ‘paradox’. GIRFT and BPT do, however, acknowledge more data are required to support this edict with current policies based on the National Joint Registry survivorship and implant costs.

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: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:77–83