Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. The aims of this study were to report the efficacy of revision surgery for patients with co-infective bacterial and fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) presenting to a single institution, and to identify prognostic factors that would guide management. Patients and Methods. A total of 1189 patients with a PJI were managed in our bone infection service between 2006 and 2015; 22 (1.85%) with co-infective bacterial and fungal PJI were included in the study. There were nine women and 13 men, with a mean age at the time of diagnosis of 64.5 years (47 to 83). Their mean BMI was 30.9 kg/m. 2. (24 to 42). We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of these PJIs, after eight total hip arthroplasties and 14 total knee arthroplasties. The mean clinical follow-up was 4.1 years (1.4 to 8.8). Results. The median number of risk factors for PJI was 5.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25 to 7.25). All seven patients who initially underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR) had a recurrent infection that led to a staged revision. All 22 patients underwent the first of a two-stage revision. None of the nine patients with negative tissue cultures at the second stage had a recurrent infection. The rate of recurrent infection was significantly higher in the presence of multidrug-resistant bacteria (p = 0.007), a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) at the time of presentation (p = 0.032), and a higher number of co-infective bacterial organisms (p = 0.041). The overall rate of eradication of infection after two and five years was 50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.9 to 75.9) and 38.9% (95% CI 22.6 to 67), respectively. Conclusion. The risk of failure to eradicate infection with the requirement of amputation associated with this diagnosis is much higher than in patients with PJI without bacterial and fungal co-infection, and this risk is heightened when the fungal organism is joined by polymicrobial and multidrug-resistant bacterial organisms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:582–588

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of positive cultures during the second stage of a two-stage revision arthroplasty and to analyse the association between positive cultures and an infection-free outcome. Patients and Methods. This single-centre retrospective review of prospectively collected data included patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of either the hip or the knee between 2013 and 2015, who were treated using a standardised diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm with two-stage exchange. Failure of treatment was assessed according to a definition determined by a Delphi-based consensus. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure. The mean follow-up was 33 months (24 to 48). Results. A total of 163 two-stage revision arthroplasties involving 84 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 79 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were reviewed. In 27 patients (16.6%), ≥ 1 positive culture was identified at re-implantation and eight (29.6%) of these subsequently failed compared with 20 (14.7%) patients who were culture-negative. The same initially infecting organism was isolated at re-implantation in nine of 27 patients (33.3%). The organism causing re-infection in none of the patients was the same as that isolated at re-implantation. The risk of the failure of treatment was significantly higher in patients with a positive culture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 3.0; p = 0.049) and in patients with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 1.8; p = 0.001). Conclusion. Positive culture at re-implantation was independently associated with subsequent failure. Surgeons need to be aware of this association and should consider the medical optimisation of patients with severe comorbidities both before and during treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1490–5

Aims

Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections.

Aims

Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months.

Aims

Gram-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been poorly studied despite its rapidly increasing incidence. Treatment with one-stage revision using intra-articular (IA) infusion of antibiotics may offer a reasonable alternative with a distinct advantage of providing a means of delivering the drug in high concentrations. Carbapenems are regarded as the last line of defense against severe Gram-negative or polymicrobial infection. This study presents the results of one-stage revision using intra-articular carbapenem infusion for treating Gram-negative PJI, and analyzes the characteristics of bacteria distribution and drug sensitivity.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal deep tissue specimen sample number for histopathological analysis in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

We report the mid-term results of femoral impaction grafting which was used in 53 patients during the second stage of a two-stage revision for an infected total hip replacement. We reviewed all cases performed between 1989 and 1998. All patients underwent a Girdlestone excision arthroplasty, received local and systemic antibiotics and subsequently underwent reconstruction, using femoral impaction grafting. Four patients had further infection (7.5%), and four died within 24 months of surgery. One patient underwent revision of the stem for a fracture below its tip at ten months. This left 44 patients with a mean follow-up of 53 months (24 to 122). All had improved clinical scores and a satisfactory radiological outcome

Aims

It can be extremely challenging to determine whether to perform reimplantation in patients who have contradictory serum inflammatory markers and frozen section results. We investigated whether patients with a positive frozen section at reimplantation were at a higher risk of reinfection despite normal ESR and CRP.

Aims

The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup.

Aims

Tissue responses to debris formed by abrasion of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacers at two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection are not well described. We hypothesised that PMMA debris induces immunomodulation in periprosthetic tissues.

Fungal peri-prosthetic infections of the knee and hip are rare but likely to result in devastating complications. In this study we evaluated the results of their management using a single-stage exchange technique. Between 2001 and 2011, 14 patients (ten hips, four knees) were treated for a peri-prosthetic fungal infection. One patient was excluded because revision surgery was not possible owing to a large acetabular defect. One patient developed a further infection two months post-operatively and was excluded from the analysis. Two patients died of unrelated causes.

After a mean of seven years (3 to 11) a total of ten patients were available for follow-up. One patient, undergoing revision replacement of the hip, had a post-operative dislocation. Another patient, undergoing revision replacement of the knee, developed a wound infection and required revision 29 months post-operatively following a peri-prosthetic femoral fracture.

The mean Harris hip score increased to 74 points (63 to 84; p < 0.02) in those undergoing revision replacement of the hip, and the mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score increased to 75 points (70 to 80; p < 0.01) in those undergoing revision replacement of the knee.

A single-stage revision following fungal peri-prosthetic infection is feasible, with an acceptable rate of a satisfactory outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:492–6.

Older patients with multiple medical co-morbidities are increasingly being offered and undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). These patients are more likely to require intensive care support, following surgery. We prospectively evaluated the need for intensive care admission and intervention in a consecutive series of 738 patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. The mean age was 60.6 years (18 to 91; 440 women, 298 men. Risk factors, correlating with the need for critical care intervention, according to published guidelines, were analysed to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from post-operative critical care monitoring. A total of 50 patients (6.7%) in our series required critical care level interventions during their hospital stay. Six independent multivariate clinical predictors were identified (p < 0.001) including a history of congestive heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 24.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.51 to 61.91), estimated blood loss >  1000 mL (OR 17.36, 95% CI 5.36 to 56.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.90, 95% CI 4.78 to 40.36), intra-operative use of vasopressors (OR 8.10, 95% CI 3.23 to 20.27), revision hip arthroplasty (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.04) and body mass index > 35 kg/m² (OR 2.70, 95% CI 123 to 5.94). The model was then validated against an independent, previously published data set of 1594 consecutive patients. The use of this risk stratification model can be helpful in predicting which high-risk patients would benefit from a higher level of monitoring and care after elective TJA and aid hospitals in allocating precious critical care resources.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1512–18.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the serum level of interleukin 6 (IL-6) could be used to identify the persistence of infection after the first stage of a two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.

Between 2010 and 2011, we prospectively studied 55 patients (23 men, 32 women; mean age 69.5 years; 36 to 86) with a periprosthetic joint infection. Bacteria were identified in two intra-operative tissue samples during re-implantation in 16 patients. These cases were classified as representing persistent infection.

To calculate a precise cut-off value which could be used in everyday clinical practice, a 3 x 2 contingency table was constructed and manually defined.

We found that a serum IL-6 ≥ 13 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating infection: its positive-predictive value is 90.9%. A serum IL-6 ≤ 8 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating an absence of infection: its negative predictive value is 92.1%.

The serum IL-6 level seems to be a reasonable marker for identifying persistent infection after the first stage of a revision joint arthroplasty and before attempting re-implantation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:71–5.

Patients with infected arthroplasties are normally treated with a two-stage exchange procedure using polymethylmethacrylate bone cement spacers impregnated with antibiotics. However, spacers may act as a foreign body to which micro-organisms may adhere and grow. In this study it was hypothesised that subclinical infection may be diagnosed with sonication of the surface biofilm of the spacer. The aims were to assess the presence of subclinical infection through sonication of the spacer at the time of a second-stage procedure, and to determine the relationship between subclinical infection and the clinical outcome. Of 55 patients studied, 11 (20%) were diagnosed with subclinical infection. At a mean follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range 6 to 18), clinical failure was found in 18 (32.7%) patients. Of the patients previously diagnosed with subclinical infection, 63% (7 of 11) had failed compared with 25% (11 of 44) of those without subclinical infection (odds ratio 5.25, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 21.4, p = 0.021). Sonication of the biofilm of the surface of the spacer is useful in order to exclude subclinical infection and therefore contributes to improving the outcome after two-stage procedures.