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. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating
complication for patients and results in greatly increased costs
of care for both healthcare providers and patients. More than 15
500 revision hip and knee procedures were recorded in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland in 2013, with infection accounting for 13%
of revision hip and 23% of revision knee procedures. We report our experience of using antibiotic eluting absorbable
calcium sulphate beads in 15 patients (eight men and seven women
with a mean age of 64.8 years; 41 to 83) as part of a treatment
protocol for PJI in revision arthroplasty. The mean follow-up was 16 months (12 to 22). We report the outcomes
and complications, highlighting the risk of hypercalcaemia which
occurred in three patients. We recommend that serum levels of calcium be routinely sought
following the implantation of absorbable calcium sulphate beads
in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article:
