The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to develop an in vivo model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in cemented hip hemiarthroplasty, and to monitor infection and biofilm formation in real-time. Sprague-Dawley rats underwent cemented hip hemiarthroplasty via the posterior approach with pre- and postoperative gait assessments. Infection with Aims
Methods
This study aims to: determine the difference in pelvic position that occurs between surgery and radiographic, supine, postoperative assessment; examine how the difference in pelvic position influences subsequent component orientation; and establish whether differences in pelvic position, and thereafter component orientation, exist between total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in the supine versus the lateral decubitus positions. The intra- and postoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs of 321 THAs were included; 167 were performed with the patient supine using the anterior approach and 154 were performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus using the posterior approach. The inclination and anteversion of the acetabular component was measured and the difference (Δ) between the intra- and postoperative radiographs was determined. The target zone was inclination/anteversion of 40°/20° (± 10°). Changes in the tilt, rotation, and obliquity of the pelvis on the intra- and postoperative radiographs were calculated from Δinclination/anteversion using the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm.Aims
Patients and Methods
In this retrospective study we evaluated the
proficiency of shelf autograft in the restoration of bone stock
as part of primary total hip replacement (THR) for hip dysplasia,
and in the results of revision arthroplasty after failure of the primary
arthroplasty. Of 146 dysplastic hips treated by THR and a shelf
graft, 43 were revised at an average of 156 months, 34 of which
were suitable for this study (seven hips were excluded because of
insufficient bone-stock data and two hips were excluded because
allograft was used in the primary THR). The acetabular bone stock
of the hips was assessed during revision surgery. The mean implant–bone
contact was 58% (50% to 70%) at primary THR and 78% (40% to 100%)
at the time of the revision, which was a significant improvement
(p <
0.001). At primary THR all hips had had a segmental acetabular
defect >
30%, whereas only five (15%) had significant segmental
bone defects requiring structural support at the time of revision.
In 15 hips (44%) no bone graft or metal augments were used during
revision. A total of 30 hips were eligible for the survival study. At a
mean follow-up of 103 months (27 to 228), two aseptic and two septic
failures had occurred. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the revision
procedures demonstrated a ten-year survival rate of 93.3% (95% confidence
interval (CI) 78 to 107) with clinical or radiological failure as
the endpoint. The mean Oxford hip score was 38.7 (26 to 46) for
non-revised cases at final follow-up. Our results indicate that the use of shelf autografts during
THR for dysplastic hips restores bone stock, contributing to the
favourable survival of the revision arthroplasty should the primary
procedure fail. Cite this article:
