Revision For Prosthetic Joint Infection Research Articles

Does retained cement or hardware during 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection increase the risk of recurrent infection?

IntroductionWhen treating chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty, removal of the implants and cement is typically pursued because they represent a potential nidus for infection. However, complete removal can increase morbidity and compromise bone stock that is important for achieving stable revision implants. The purpose of this study is to compare the rates of repeat infection after 2-stage revision for PJI in patients who have retained cement or hardware compared to those who had complete removal. Material and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed all two-stage revision total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) performed for infection at two institutions between 2011 and 2020 with minimum two-year follow-up from completion of the two-stage revision. Patients were included if they met the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for probable or definite infection2. Postoperative radiographs after the first-stage of the revision consisting of prosthesis and cement removal and placement of an antibiotic spacer were reviewed to evaluate for retained cement or hardware. Repeat infection was defined as either ≥2 positive cultures at the time of second-stage revision with the same organism cultured during the first-stage revision or repeat surgery for infection after the two-stage revision in patients that again met the ICM criteria for probable or definite infection. The rate of repeat infection among patients with retained cement or hardware was compared to the rate of infection among patients without retained cement or hardware. ResultsThirty-seven patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Six (16%) patients had retained cement and one patient (3%) had two retained broken glenoid baseplate screws after first-stage revision. Of the ten cases of recurrent infection, one case (10%) involved retained cement/hardware. Age at revision (60.9±10.6 vs. 65.0±9.6, p=0.264), BMI (33.4±7.2 vs. 29.7±7.3, p=0.184), Charlson Comorbidity Index (2 (0-8) vs. 3 (0-6), p=0.289), male sex (7 vs. 16, p=0.420) and presence of diabetes (1 vs. 3, p=0.709) were not associated with repeat infection. Retained cement or hardware was also not associated with a repeat risk of infection (1 vs. 6, OR=0.389, p=0.374). DiscussionWe did not find an increased risk of repeat infection in patients with retained cement or hardware compared to those without. Therefore, we believe that surgeons should consider leaving cement or hardware that is difficult to remove and may lead to increased morbidity and future complications.

Frequent microbiological profile changes are seen in subsequent-revision hip and knee arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection.

A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat-revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. Results: A total of 106 patients were identified. Of these patients, 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. The mean age at first revision was 67years (SD 10). The Charlson comorbidity index was 2 for 31 patients, 3-4 for 57 patients, and 5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent at least two revisions, 73 patients received three, 47 patients received four, 31 patients received five, and 21 patients received at least six. After six revisions, 90 % of patients had different organisms cultured compared with the initial revision, and 53 % of organisms were multidrug resistant. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (36 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (19 %). Fungus was cultured from 3 % of revisions, and 21 % of infections were polymicrobial. Conclusion: Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organism, with 90 % of patients having a different organism cultured by their sixth revision. It is therefore important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, taking into account known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support the routine use of empirical antifungals.

Demographics and Early Outcomes of Commercial Antibiotic Cement Usage for Infection Prophylaxis During Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 65 Years: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study.

The use of antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) for infection prophylaxis in the setting of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Using data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR), (1) we examined the demographics of ALBC usage in the United States and (2) identified the effect of prophylactic commercially available ALBC on early revision and readmission for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary TKA. This is a retrospective cohort study of the AJRR from 2017 to 2020. Patients older than 65 years undergoing primary cemented TKA with or without the use of commercially available antibiotic cement were eligible for inclusion (N = 251,506 patients). Data were linked to available Medicare claims to maximize revision outcomes. Demographics including age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative inflammatory arthritis, region, and body mass index (BMI) class were recorded. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the two outcome measures and ALBC usage. Patients undergoing cemented TKA with ALBC were more likely to be Non-Hispanic Black ( P < 0.001), have a CCI of 2 or 3 ( P < 0.001), reside in the South ( P < 0.001), and had a higher mean BMI ( P < 0.001). In the regression models, ALBC usage was associated with increased risk of 90-day revision for PJI (hazards ratio 2.175 [95% confidence interval] 1.698 to 2.787) ( P < 0.001) and was not associated with 90-day all-cause readmissions. Male sex, higher CCI, and BMI >35 were all independently associated with 90-day revision for PJI. The use of commercial ALBC in patients older than 65 years for primary TKA in the AJRR was not closely associated with underlying comorbidities suggesting that hospital-level and surgeon-level factors influence its use. In addition, ALBC use did not decrease the risk of 90-day revision for PJI and was not associated with 90-day readmission rates.

No difference in risk of revision due to infection between clindamycin and cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cemented primary total knee replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005-2020.

Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis with clindamycin, which is often used in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients', has been associated with a higher risk of surgical revision for deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than cloxacillin in primary total knee replacement (TKR). We aimed to investigate whether clindamycin increases the risk of surgical revisions due to PJI compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKR. Data from 59,081 TKRs in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2005-2020 was included. 2,655 (5%) received clindamycin and 56,426 (95%) received cephalosporins. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustment for sex, age groups, diagnosis, and ASA score. Survival times were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using Cox regression with revision for PJI as endpoint. The cephalosporins cefalotin and cefazolin were also compared. Of the TKRs included, 1.3% (n = 743) were revised for PJI. 96% (n = 713) had received cephalosporins and 4% (n = 30) clindamycin for perioperative prophylaxis. Comparing cephalosporins (reference) and clindamycin, at 3-month follow-up the adjusted hazard ratio rate (HRR) for PJI was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.4), at 1 year 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.5), and at 5 years 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.4). Analysis using propensity score matching showed similar results. Furthermore, comparing cefalotin (reference) and cefazolin, HRR was 1.0 (CI 0.8-1.4) at 3 months and 1.0 (CI 0.7-1.3) at 1-year follow-up. We found no difference in risk of revision for PJI when using clindamycin compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKRs. It appears safe to continue the use of clindamycin in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients.

Failed 2-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection—Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

BackgroundChronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is most frequently treated with 2-stage revision in conjunction with antibiotic treatment. The aims of this study were 1) to investigate the characteristics of patients who have recurrent infection following 2-stage revision for PJI and 2) to identify risk factors associated with treatment failure. MethodsA multicenter retrospective review of 90 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who underwent 2-stage revision for treatment of PJI from March 1, 2003 to July 31, 2019, and had recurrent PJI was conducted. The minimum follow-up was 12 months (median follow up of 2.4 years). Microorganisms, subsequent revision, PJI control status, and final joint status were collected. The infection-free survival after initial 2-stage revision was plotted utilizing the Kaplan–Meier method. ResultsMean survival time to reinfection was 21.3 months (range, 0.3 to 160.5). There were 14 recurrent infections that were acute PJIs treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), while 76 were chronic and treated with repeat 2-stage revision. The most common pathogen identified for both index and recurrent PJI was coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Pathogen persistence was observed in 14 (22.2%) of recurrent PJIs. In total, 61 (67.8%) patients possessed a prosthetic reimplantation at their most recent follow-up, and 29 (35.6%) patients required intervention following repeat 2-stage. ConclusionOverall, 31.1% of the patients obtained infection control after treatment of a failed 2-stage revision due to PJI. The high rate of pathogen persistence and the relatively low survival time to recurrence suggests a need to more closely monitor PJIs cases within 2 years.

ROUTINE SURGICAL ANTISEPTIC AGENTS ARE INEFFECTIVE IN THE ERADICATION OF TYPICAL PJI BIOFILM FORMED ON ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANT MATERIAL IN VITRO AND THE ABSENCE OF AN ANTISEPTIC NEUTRALIZATION STAGE GIVES THE FALSE IMPRESSION OF EFFICACY

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following joint replacement. Antiseptic solutions are often used for intraoperative wound irrigation particularly in cases of revision for PJI. Antiseptic irrigation is intended to eradicate residual bacteria which may be either free floating or in residual biofilm although there is no clear clinical efficacy for its use. Also, reviewing the scientific literature there is discordance in in vitro results where some studies questions antiseptic efficacy whilst others suggest that even at low concentration antiseptic agents are effective at eradicating bacterial biofilms.The aim of this in vitro study was to establish the efficacy of undiluted antiseptic agents at eradication of a typical PJI forming biofilm and determine the importance of an antiseptic neutralisation step in this assessment.Mature Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms grown on TiAl6V4 discs were submerged in chlorohexidine (CHL) gluconate 4%, povidone-iodine (PI) 10% or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) control solution. The discs were then rinsed, the biofilm bacteria suspended in solution using sonication and vortexing, and the viable count (CFU/ml) of the bacterial suspensions determined. The rinse/suspension solution was either (a) PBS or (b) Dey-Engley neutralization broth (NB).When PBS was used to rinse/suspend the biofilm a highly significant, 7.5 and 4.1, mean log reduction in biofilm vitality was observed from the control, for CHL 4% and PI 10%, respectively. However, when NB was the rinse/suspension solution the apparent antiseptic biofilm eradication efficacy was replaced with a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant less the one log-reduction in biofilm vitality.Clinical antiseptic agents are ineffective at eradicating S. epidermidis biofilm in an in vitro PJI model and absence of a neutralisation step gives the false impression of efficacy. Antiseptics alone are an ineffective treatment for biofilm related PJI and no substitute for meticulous debridement.

Mark Coventry Award: Human Knee Has a Distinct Microbiome: Implications for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundPathogens causing prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are thought to gain access to the knee during surgery or from a remote site in the body. Recent studies have shown that there is a distinct microbiome in various sites of the body. This prospective study, and first of its kind, was set up to investigate the presence of possible microbiome in human knee and compare the profile in different knee conditions. MethodsWe obtained synovial fluid from 65 knees (55 patients) with various conditions that included normal knee, osteoarthritis (OA), aseptic revision, and those undergoing revision for PJI. The contralateral knee of patients who had a PJI were also aspirated for comparison. A minimum of 3 milliliters of synovial fluid was collected per joint. All samples were aliquoted for culture and next-generation sequencing analysis. ResultsThe highest number of species was found in native osteoarthritic knees (P ≤ .035). Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus, and Paracoccus species were dominant in native nonosteoarthritic knees, and meanwhile a markedly high abundance of Proteobacteria was observed in the osteoarthritic joints. Moreover, the contralateral and aseptic revision knees showed a similar trend in bacterial composition (P = .75). The sequencing analysis of patients who had PJI diagnosis, confirmed the culture results. ConclusionDistinct knee microbiome profiles can be detected in patients who have OA and other knee conditions. The distinct microbiome in the knee joint and the close host-microbe relationships within the knee joint may play a decisive role in the development of OA and PJI.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these...

The Impact of Epilepsy on Complication Rates After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score–Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundIt is unclear how epilepsy may affect total joint arthroplasty outcomes. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of epilepsy on prosthesis-related complications following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database. Patients who have epilepsy underwent a primary THA (n = 6,981) and TKA (n = 4,987) and were matched 1:4 (THA, n = 27,924; TKA, n = 19,948). Rates of low-energy falls and prosthesis-related complications within 2 years postoperatively were compared for patients who did and did not have epilepsy with multivariable logistic regression. ResultsAfter primary TKA, patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of aseptic revision (4.3% versus 3.5%, odds ratio [OR] 1.21, P = .017) and revision for prosthetic joint infection (1.8% versus 1.3%, OR 1.29, P = .041). THA patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of prosthetic dislocation (3.2% versus 1.9%, OR 1.54, P < .001), periprosthetic fracture (2.2% versus 0.8%, OR 2.39, P < .001), and aseptic loosening (1.7% versus 1.1%, OR 1.40, P = .002). Rates of low-energy falls within 2 years after TKA (14.1% versus 6.4%, OR 2.19, P < .001) and THA (33.6% versus 7.5%, OR 5.95, P < .001) were also significantly higher for patients who have epilepsy. ConclusionEpilepsy was associated with significantly higher rates of falls (P < .001) and prosthesis-related complications after primary THA (P < .05) and TKA (P < .05). Precautions should be implemented in this population during intraoperative and perioperative decision-making to reduce complication risk. Level of EvidenceLevel III.

Repeat revision TKR for failed management of peri-prosthetic infection has long-term success but often require multiple operations: a case control study.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is associated with poor outcomes and catastrophic complications. The aim of this study was to present the outcomes of re-revision surgery for PJI of the knee following previous failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty. A retrospective analysis was performed of 32 patients who underwent re-revision knee arthroplasty, having already undergone at least one previous two-stage exchange for PJI with a minimum follow-up of two-years for alive patients. Outcomes were compared to a matched control of two-stage revisions for PJI of a primary knee replacement also containing 32 patients. Outcomes investigated were eradication of infection, re-operation, mortality and limb-salvage rate. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in 50% of patients following re-revision surgery, compared with 91% following two-stage exchange of primary knee replacement for PJI (p < 0.001). Fourteen (44%) patients required further re-operation compared with three (9%) patients in the primary group (p = 0.006). Amputation was performed in one case (3%) with thirteen patients (92%) who had infection controlled by debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), further revision surgery or arthrodesis. Two patients died with infection (6%) and the long-term rate for infection control was 91%. The mean number of procedures following surgery for the re-revision group was 2.8 (0-9) compared with 0.13 (0-1) for the primary two-stage group (p < 0.001). Five-year patient survival was 90.6% (95% CI 77.1-100). The limb-salvage rate for the re-revision cohort was 97%. Outcomes for re-revision knee arthroplasty for PJI have higher re-operation and failure rates, but no worse mortality than in revisions of primary knee replacements. Failures can successfully be managed by further operation.

A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery.

Aims: this study compared the patient and microbiological profile of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients treated with two-stage revision for knee arthroplasty with that of lower-limb endoprostheses for oncological resection. Patient and methods: a total of 118 patients were treated with two-stage revision surgery for infected knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses between 1999 and 2019. A total of 74 patients had two-stage revision for PJI of knee arthroplasty, and 44 had two-stage revision of oncology knee endoprostheses. There were 68 men and 50 women. The mean ages of the arthroplasty and oncology cohorts were 70.2 years (range of 50–89) and 36.1 years (range of 12–78) respectively (.01). Patient host and extremity criteria were categorized according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host and extremity staging system. The patient microbiological culture, the incidence of polymicrobial infection, and multidrug resistance (MDR) were analysed and recorded. Results: polymicrobial infection was reported in 16 % (12 patients) of knee arthroplasty PJI cases and in 14.5 % (8 patients) of endoprostheses PJI cases (.783). There was a significantly higher incidence of MDR in endoprostheses PJI, isolated in 36.4 % of cultures, compared with knee arthroplasty PJI (17.2 %, .01). Gram-positive organisms were isolated in more than 80 % of cultures from both cohorts. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) was the most common Gram-positive organism, and Escherichia coli was the most common Gram-negative organism in both groups. According to the MSIS staging system, the host and extremity grades of the oncology PJI cohort were significantly worse than those for the arthroplasty PJI cohort (.05). Conclusion: empirical antibiotic prophylaxis against PJI in orthopaedic oncology is based upon PJI in arthroplasty, despite oncology patients presenting with worse host and extremity staging. CoNS was the most common infective organism in both groups; however, pathogens showing MDR were significantly more prevalent in oncological PJI of the knee. Therefore, empirical broad-spectrum treatment is recommended in oncological patients following revision surgery.

The Hidden Cost of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

The Hidden Cost of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Is a preoperative pathogen detection a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip?

BackgroundA preoperative pathogen detection is considered a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to most guidelines. This study compares patients with and without preoperative pathogen detection undergoing one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip. The authors put up the hypothesis that a preoperative pathogen detection is no prerequisite in selected cases undergoing one-stage exchange.Methods30 consecutive patients with PJI of the hip, treated with one-stage exchange, between 2011 and 2021, were retrospectively included. Mean age was 70 years and mean follow-up 2.1 ± 1.8 years. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society. One-stage exchange was performed in (1) chronic PJI longer than 4 weeks, (2) well-retained bone condition, (3) absence of multiple prior revisions for PJI (≤ 2) with absence of difficult-to-treat pathogens in the past, and (4) necessity/preference for early mobility due to comorbidities/age.ResultsOne-stage exchange was performed in 20 patients with and in 10 without a preoperative pathogen detection. Age (71 years, 68 years, p = 0.519), sex (50% and 30% males, p = 0.440), American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (2.2, 2.4, p = 0.502), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3, 4, p = 0.530) did not differ among the two groups. No significant differences were noted concerning preoperative CRP (15 mg/l, 43 mg/l, p = 0.228), synovial cell count (15.990/nl, 5.308/nl, p = 0.887), radiological signs of loosening (55%, 50%, p = 0.999), and intraoperative histopathology. Except a higher rate of coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%, 20%, p = 0.019) in patients with a preoperative pathogen detection, no significant differences in pathogen spectrum were identified among groups. Revision for PJI recurrence was performed in one patient with an initial preoperative pathogen detection (3.3%). Additional revisions were performed for dislocation in two and postoperative hematoma in one patient. Revision rate for both septic and aseptic causes (p = 0.999), stay in hospital (16 and 15 days, p = 0.373) and modified Harris Hip Score (60, 71, p = 0.350) did not differ between groups.ConclusionPatients with and without a preoperative pathogen detection did not show significant differences concerning baseline characteristics, clinical and functional outcomes at 2 years. An absent preoperative pathogen detection is no absolute contraindication for one-stage exchange in chronic PJI, if involving good bone quality and absence of multiple prior revisions.

Articular spacers in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip and the knee.

Use of articular antibiotic-eluting cement spacers during two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a long-established and proven adjunctive technique during first-stage surgery. Articular spacers come in many forms, either static or dynamic. The authors present an instructional review of current evidence regarding their use.A total of 45 studies (for spacer use in PJI involving either hip or knee) were analysed for data regarding eradication rate, functional outcomes, mechanical complications and the impact on second-stage surgery. A large number of case series and retrospective cohort studies were retrieved, with only a small number of prospective studies (2).High levels of infection eradication were commonly reported (>80%). Outcome scores were commonly reported as indicating good-to-excellent function and pain levels. Second-stage procedures were often not required when dynamic spacers were used. Static spacers were associated with more mechanical complications in both the hip and the knee. In the hip, dynamic spacers were more commonly associated with instability compared to static spacers. Consideration should be given to the use of dual-mobility or constrained definitive acetabular components in these cases at second-stage surgery.The use of antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate articular spacers in two-stage revision for PJI of hip and knee arthroplasty achieves a high rate of infection eradication. Dynamic spacers may confer a variety of benefits compared to static spacers, with a similar rate of infection eradication.

Adoption of Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Reliable Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at Minimum Two-Year Follow Up

Introduction: Longevity and success of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is largely dependent on component positioning. While use of robotic platforms can improve this positioning, published evidence on its clinical benefits is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of THA with robotic surgical assistance. Materials and Methods: We conducted an analysis of robotic arm-assisted primary THAs performed by a single surgeon utilizing a posterior approach. A total of 99 patients (107 cases) who had a minimum two-year follow up were identified. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 33 to 84 years), and their mean body mass index was 30.5 kg/m2 (range, 18.5 to 49.1 kg/m2). There were 56% female patients and primary osteoarthritis was the principal hip diagnosis in 88.8%. Operative times, lengths of hospital stay, and discharge dispositions were recorded, along with any complications. Modified Harris Hip Scores (HHS) were calculated to quantify clinical outcomes. Results: Mean postoperative increases in HHS at 2- to 5.7-year follow up was 33 points (range, 6 to 77 points). There were no complications attributable to the use of robotic assistance. Surgical-site complications were rare; one case underwent a revision for prosthetic joint infection (0.93%) but there were no dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, or cases of mechanical implant loosening. There was no evidence of progressive radiolucencies or radiographic failure. Discussion: Robotic arm-assisted THA resulted in low complication rates at minimum two-year follow up, with clinical outcomes comparable to those reported with manual surgery.1–4 The haptically-guided acetabular bone preparation enabled reliable cementless acetabular fixation and there were no adverse events related to the use of the robot. Dislocations were avoided in this case series. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to compare manual to robotic surgery and to investigate whether the precision found with this functional planning will reliably reduce the incidence of dislocations.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection.

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

Post-surgery and recovery experiences following one- and two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection-A qualitative study of patients' experiences.

Deep prosthetic hip infection is a devastating complication of hip replacement surgery, and treatment often involves multiple revision surgeries with antibiotic chemotherapy to control the infection. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ experiences of early and longer-term recovery after one-stage or two-stage revision with an excised hip, a temporary cement spacer or a custom-made articulating spacer. We interviewed 32 participants taking part in a surgical trial at two time points (2–4 months and 18 months) following one- or two-stage revision surgery. The analytic approach was inductive using the constant comparative method to generate themes from the data. Participants’ early recovery after revision was characterised by a long hospital stay with burdensome antibiotics and limited physiotherapy provision. Participants undergoing two-stage revision with an excised hip or a cement spacer described severe mobility restrictions which affected all aspects of their lives, while those undergoing one-stage revision, or two-stage revision with an articulating spacer were more mobile and independent, with some limitations. Participants with a cement spacer also reported more pain than other treatment groups, while those with an articulating spacer appeared to perceive that their recovery was slow. At 18 months, participants in all groups described both improvements and losses in mobility and functional ability. Participants in all treatment groups expressed considerable emotional resilience during recovery from revision, which may be linked to opportunities to talk with the trial personnel. Participants identified the need for better information and psychological and physical support. Experience of recovery differs after one- and two-stage revision, and further in relation to the use of spacers. Mobility, function, independence and pain are important aspects of recovery which affect all aspects of day-to-day life. Increased information and more opportunities to talk and share experiences may provide psychological support during recovery.

Is the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement associated with a lower risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty?

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. The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997-1002.

Silver-coated (PorAg®) endoprosthesis can be protective against reinfection in the treatment of tumor prostheses infection.

We aim to evaluate the use of silver (PorAg®) coated compared to uncoated prosthesis in two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of distal femur and proximal tibia megaprosthesis in oncological patients. In total, 68 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Median age was 30years (range 14-83). In total, 29 patients were re-implanted with PorAg® prosthesis and 39 with uncoated prosthesis (Megasystem C®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany). All patients had PJI confirmed according to Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. In 10 cases, no microorganism was identified at the time of first-stage revision, but all had a sinus communicating with the prosthesis. Successful eradication of the infection was defined by the absence of clinical/serologic evidence of infection at 6months after the second stage or at latest follow-up. Infection was again defined according to the MSIS criteria. At 3-year follow-up, estimated reinfection rate in the silver group was slightly lower than in uncoated EPR (10.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.104). Among reinfected patients, only one out of three patients (33%) in the silver group required an amputation compared to 80% in the nonsilver group (p = 0.047). Our results show the efficacy of PorAg® coating in the two-stage revision of knee EPR. PorAg®-coated EPR may have possible advantages over this traditional strategy, in particular when applied to patients with a higher risk of reinfection.

Implant Material As A Modifiable Risk Factor For Infection In THA: A Literature And Registry Review

Aim:Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) is a rare but serious post-operative complication of hip replacement that often ends in complex implant revision and dramatically impacts the quality of life of the patient. Finally, costs associated with PJI significantly impact healthcare systems. Current research focuses on understanding the mechanisms of infection and identifying the risk factors related thereto. The objective of this study was to examine the potential impact of bearing materials on the incidence of infection in THA.Methods:Registries are a valuable tool to analyze large cohorts of THA patients and the influence of selected parameters on the clinical outcome of the surgeries. Data from THA patients recorded in the NJR, AOA and NZ registries were analyzed with respect to the incidence of infection. Material data and scientific publications were also reviewed to investigate if the incidence of PJI might be correlated with the specific bearing material used.Results:The use of metal bearings was consensually identified in all large patient cohorts as an independent risk factor for PJI. In contrast, using ceramic bearings was associated with a lower risk of revision for PJI.1 In vitro and ex vivo studies comparing the biological response to ceramic, metal and polyethylene materials are helpful to explain these findings. Metal exposure might activate the immune system and the released metal particles and ions might trigger adverse reactions with high inflammatory potential In contrast, extreme low wear ceramic bearings are well tolerated, show an excellent biological behavior 2,3,4,5,6 and might even support the wound healing process by initiating a healthy fibrotic pseudo-capsulation4. Furthermore, low wear is less likely to serve as a nidus for infection.Discussion and conclusion:Considering modifiable risk factors prior to THA is a key aspect for surgery success, implant longevity and patient satisfaction. Selecting a bearing material with enhanced biocompatibility like ceramics seems to have a measureable impact on the clinical outcomes. Favourable host-implant interactions might explain this observation.Literature: 1) Lenguerrand et al. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: a prospective observational cohort study The Lancet, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30345-12) Faye PA et al. Biomed Mater. 2017;12(1):0150233) Cunningham BW et al. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2013;19(3):336-3504) Savarino L et al. Acta Orthopaedica. 2009;80(2):162-1675) Asif IM et al. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. Conference : 10th World Biomaterials Congress. doi: 10.3389/conf. FBIOE.2016.01.007936) Asif I M et al. Characterisation and Biological Impact of Wear Particles from Composite Ceramic Hip Replacements. PhD thesis, University of Leeds (2018). http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/20563/7) Pitto et al Are ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty associated with reduced revision risk for late dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3790–3795. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4395-6