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

Aims. Severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity (PD) present particular challenges in revision total hip arthroplasty. To deal with such complex situations, cup-cage reconstruction has emerged as an option for treating this situation. We aimed to examine our success in using this technique for these anatomical problems. Patients and Methods. We undertook a retrospective, single-centre series of 35 hips in 34 patients (seven male, 27 female) treated with a cup-cage construct using a trabecular metal shell in conjunction with a titanium cage, for severe acetabular bone loss between 2011 and 2015. The mean age at the time of surgery was 70 years (42 to 85) and all patients had an acetabular defect graded as Paprosky Type 2C through to 3B, with 24 hips (69%) having PD. The mean follow-up was 47 months (25 to 84). Results. The cumulative five-year survivorship of the implant with revision for any cause was 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72 to 96) with eight hips at risk. No revision was required for aseptic loosening; however, one patient with one hip (3%) required removal of the ischial flange of the cage due to sciatic nerve irritation. Two patients (6%; two hips) suffered from hip dislocation, whereas one patient (one hip) required revision surgery with cement fixation of a dual-mobility acetababular component into a well-fixed cup-cage construct. Two patients (6%; two hips) developed periprosthetic infection. One patient was successfully controlled with a two-stage revision surgery, while the other patient underwent excision arthroplasty due to severe medical comorbidities. For the whole series, the Harris Hip Score significantly improved from a mean of 30 (15 to 51) preoperatively to 71 (40 to 89) at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that cup-cage reconstruction is a viable option for major segmental bone defects involving the posterior column and PD. It allows adequate restoration of the acetabulum centre with generally good stability and satisfactory postoperative function. Instability and infection remain drawbacks in these challenging revision cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1442–48

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.

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

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.

Aims

To explore the effect of different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in two-stage revision for chronic hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

Aims

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.

Objectives

We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI.

Aims

Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs.

We evaluated triple-phase bone scintigraphy in the differential diagnosis of peri-prosthetic infection in 46 patients with a total hip replacement or bipolar hemiarthroplasty who were due for revision surgery. There were 18 men and 28 women, with a mean age at operation of 64.6 years (28 to 81). We defined peri-prosthetic infection as an increased uptake of radioisotope in all the phases of triple-phase bone scintigraphy and validated these results against the histological and/or microbiology results in every case.

The positive and negative predictive values for the presence of infection were 83% and 93%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity was 88% and the specificity was 90%.

This study indicates that triple-phase bone scintigraphy is a useful tool in the detection of peri-prosthetic infection and offers a cost-effective method of screening.