Surgical treatment of Hip PJI by resection of the infected implants and tissue and placement of a “spacer” which elutes antibiotic via antibiotic loaded cement is an accepted treatment option. There is some controversy over whether this “spacer” should be articulating or static. Proponents of the articulating option argue that there is improved function and maintenance of the soft tissue envelop. Critics have suggested that additional biomaterials may compromise eradication of infection. This study compares our results of the 2 treatment options. A review of our institutional PJI database between 2016 and 2021 identified 87 patients who were treated with resection arthroplasty for unilateral total hip PJI. The cohort was analyzed for demographics and type for surgery, as well as medical comorbidities, survivorship, and treatment success. 44 patients were female, the mean age of all patients was 62. 44 patients were treated with Articulating apacers, and 43 patients treated with static spacers. There was no significant difference between ASA or Elixhauser score, and no significant difference between mortality or treatment failure. This study did not show any difference between the patients who receive static spacers, from those who received articulating spacers, and deomstrated similar treatment success rates. From this data there does not appear to be any difference in success rates between those patients that were treated with static spacers and those that were treated with articulating spacers

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.

Background. Antibiotic loaded bone cement (ALBC) is commonly used in cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an attempt to reduce the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, its role versus plain cement remains controversial due to the potential risk of developing resistant organisms and potential excess costs incurred from its usage. We investigated the relationship of ALBC and plain cement in affecting outcome of revision surgery after primary THA. Methodology. We conducted a retrospective study of data collected from National Joint Registry for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1. st. September 2005 until 31. st. August 2017. A logistic regression analysis model was used to investigate the association between ALBC versus plain cement and the odds ratio (OR) for revision, adjusting for age, ASA grade, bearing surfaces, head size and cup and stem fixation. Indications for revision recorded in NJR were considered in separate models. Results. We identified 418,925 THAs where bone cements were used (22,037 plain cement; 396,888 ALBC). After adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of revision for infection was lower with ALBC (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.95). There was also lower risk of revision for aseptic loosening of stem (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39–0.72), aseptic loosening of socket (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37– 0.58). When breaking down hips into fully cemented or hybrid fixation, the protective effect of ALBC against infection was only apparent in fully cemented (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87) when compared against hybrid fixation (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66–1.23). Discussion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study has demonstrated an association between the use of ALBC and lower rates of revision for infection and aseptic loosening. Conclusion. This finding supports the current use of ABLC in cemented THAs

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

We report the five year outcomes of a two-stage approach for infected total hip replacement. This is a single-surgeon experience at a tertiary centre where the more straightforward cases are treated using single-stage exchange. This study highlights the vital role of the multidisciplinary team in managing these cases.

A total of 125 patients (51 male, 74 female) with a mean age of 68 years (42 to 78) were reviewed prospectively. Functional status was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). The mean HHS improved from 38 (6 to 78.5) pre-operatively to 81.2 (33 to 98) post-operatively. Staphylococcus species were isolated in 85 patients (68%).

The rate of control of infection was 96% at five years. In all, 19 patients died during the period of the study. This represented a one year mortality of 0.8% and an overall mortality of 15.2% at five years. No patients were lost to follow-up.

We report excellent control of infection in a series of complex patients and infections using a two-stage revision protocol supported by a multidisciplinary approach. The reason for the high rate of mortality in these patients is not known.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1312–18

Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time. In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected, and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to 14 days.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:77–83.

Despite the worldwide usage of the cemented Contemporary acetabular component (Stryker), no published data are available regarding its use in patients aged < 50 years. We undertook a mid- to long-term follow-up study, including all consecutive patients aged < 50 years who underwent a primary total hip replacement using the Contemporary acetabular component with the Exeter cemented stem between January 1999 and January 2006. There were 152 hips in 126 patients, 61 men and 65 women, mean age at surgery 37.6 years (16 to 49 yrs). One patient was lost to follow-up.

Mean clinical follow-up of all implants was 7.6 years (0.9 to 12.0). All clinical questionnaire scores, including Harris hip score, Oxford hip score and several visual analogue scales, were found to have improved. The eight year survivorship of all acetabular components for the endpoints revision for any reason or revision for aseptic loosening was 94.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.2 to 97.2) and 96.4% (95% CI 91.6 to 98.5), respectively. Radiological follow-up was complete for 146 implants. The eight year survival for the endpoint radiological loosening was 93.1% (95% CI 86.2 to 96.6). Three surviving implants were considered radiologically loose but were asymptomatic. The presence of acetabular osteolysis (n = 17, 11.8%) and radiolucent lines (n = 20, 13.9%) in the 144 surviving cups indicates a need for continued observation in the second decade of follow-up in order to observe their influence on long-term survival.

The clinical and radiological data resulting in a ten-year survival rate > 90% in young patients support the use of the Contemporary acetabular component in this specific patient group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1617–25.