Aim. Two stage revision is the most commonly used surgical treatment strategy for periprosthetic hip infections (PHI). The aim of our study was to assess the intra- and postoperative complications during and after two stage revision using resection arthroplasty between ex- and reimplantation. Method. In this retrospective cohort study, all patients treated with a two stage revision using resection arthroplasty for PHI were included from 2008 to 2014. During the first stage, the prosthesis was removed resulting in a resection arthroplasty without the use a PMMA spacer. During second stage, (cemented or uncemented) reimplantation of the hip prosthesis was performed. The cohort was stratified into two groups according to the length of prosthesis-free interval (≤10 weeks and >10 weeks). Data on complications during explantation, prosthesis-free interval, reimplantation, and after reimplantation was collected. The overall complication rate between both groups was compared using the chi-squared test. The revision-free and infection-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results. Overall, 93 patients with hip PJI treated with two-stage revision performing resection arthroplasty were included, 49 had a prosthesis-free interval of ≤10 weeks, and 44 an interval of >10 weeks. A total of 146 complications was documented in the cohort. Patients were followed-up for a mean duration of 42.7 months, range: 13.1 – 104.6 months. Blood loss during reimplantation [n=25], blood loss during explantation [n=23], persistent infection during prosthesis-free interval [n=16], leg length discrepancy [n=13], and reinfection [n=9] were the most common complications. No complication showed a statistically significant difference between both groups except for wound healing disorder after reimplantation, which was more often reported in the group with > 10 weeks interval (p=0.009). A statistically significant increase of periprosthetic bone fractures (p=0.05), blood loss (p=0.039), and total number of complications (p=0.008) was seen with increasing acetabular bone defects (after Paprosky). Infection-free survival rate at 24 months was 93.9% (95% CI: 87.2 – 100) in the group with ≤10 weeks interval and 85.9% (95% CI: 75.4 – 96.4) with an interval of > 10weeks. Conclusions. After two years of follow-up, the infection-free survival rate using resection arthroplasty during two stage revision for PHI was higher in the group with ≤10 weeks interval compared to the group with >10 weeks interval. The most common complications during and after a two stage revision using resection arthroplasty were blood loss during the two surgeries, persistent infection during the prosthesis-free interval, leg length discrepancy, and reinfection

Infection remains a serious complication of total hip replacement (THR). Management options have been developed to improve clearance of infection while maintaining joint function during treatment and improve outcome at reimplantation. The gold standard in management is generally considered to be implant removal and thorough debridement with antibiotic therapy delivered systemically and locally with impregnated spacers. However, some surgeons still prefer to use Girdlestone resection arthroplasty, thus not leaving any foreign body in situ. The aim of this study was to compare infection clearance rates, radiographic and functional outcomes after two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty with (1) gentamicin-loaded bone cement spacer or (2) Girdlestone resection arthroplasty as the first stage of treatment. We retrospectively reviewed data of 48 patients (20 females, 28 males) with implanted spacers and 53 patients (21 females, 32 males) treated with resection arthroplasty at tertiary care university hospital in the years 2008–2012. Minimum follow-up was three years (range, 3–7 years). Treatment choice was at the operating surgeons's discretion. In the spacer group, mean age at the time of first stage was 62 years (range 24–79 years), time from primary replacement 14 months, and the time from the first to the second stage of the revision 7 months. At latest, minimum 3-year follow-up, two were still ambulating with a spacer in situ, and five were re-revised with another spacer before the reimplantation of the THR. In the resection arthroplasty group, mean age at the time of first stage was 64 years (range, 37–87 years), time from primary replacement 13 months, and the time from the first to the second stage of revision − 10 months. At the latest follow-up, four patients were ambulating with resection arthroplasty, one did not clear his infection and one died of unrelated causes. The cure ratio appeared to be the same within both groups (Fisher exact test, p=0.08). Patients with spacers achieved better functional results, used less supports for ambulation and had less leg length discrepancy after the second stage of revision. In the light of those results, we cannot recommend for the use of resection arthroplasty in the treatment of the infected THR

Aim. Decubitus ulcers are found in approximately 4.7% of hospitalized patients, with a higher prevalence (up to 30%) among those with spinal cord injuries. These ulcers are often associated with hip septic arthritis and/or osteomyelitis involving the femur. Girdlestone resection arthroplasty is a surgical technique used to remove affected proximal femur and acetabular tissues, resulting in a substantial defect. The vastus lateralis flap has been employed as an effective option for managing this dead space. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of this procedure in a consecutive series of patients. Method. A retrospective single-center study was conducted from October 2012 to December 2022, involving 7 patients with spinal cord injuries affected by chronic severe septic hip arthritis and/or femoral head septic necrosis as a consequence of decubitus ulcers over trochanter area. All patients underwent treatment using a multidisciplinary approach by the same surgical team (orthopedic and plastic surgeons) along with infectious disease specialists. The treatment consisted of a one-stage procedure combining Girdlestone resection arthroplasty with unilateral vastus lateralis flap reconstruction, alongside targeted antibiotic therapy. Complications and postoperative outcomes were assessed and recorded. The mean follow-up period was 8 years (range 2-12). Results. Of the 7 patients, 5 were male and 2 were female, with a mean age of 50.3 years at the time of surgery. Minor wound dehiscence occurred in 28.6% of the flap sites, and 2 patients required additional revisional procedures—one for hematoma and the other for bleeding. There were no instances of flap failure, and complete wound healing was achieved in an average of 32 days (range 20-41), with the ability to load over the hip area. No cases of infection recurrence or relapse were observed. Conclusions. An aggressive surgical approach is strongly recommended for managing chronic hip septic arthritis or proximal femur osteomyelitis in patients with spinal cord injuries. A single-stage procedure combining Girdlestone resection arthroplasty with immediate vastus lateralis muscle flap reconstruction proves to be an effective strategy for dead space management and localized antibiotic delivery through the vastus muscle, giving reliable soft tissue coverage around the proximal femur to avoid the recurrence of pressure ulcers. The implementation of a standardized multidisciplinary protocol contributes significantly to the success of reconstruction efforts

Introduction

There is no consensus on the ideal management of young, active patients with disabling coxarthrosis. Within this group, patients with femoral head defects secondary to cysts or avascular necrosis pose particular challenges. Resurfacing arthroplasty is contraindicated and the results of traditional total hip arthroplasty are suboptimal in this group. The BMHR was designed to offer a bone conserving option for these patients. We report the outcome of this device in the short term.

In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), a high complication rate is noted in the international literature (24.7%), and limited local literature is available. The complications in our developing health system, with high HIV, tuberculosis and metabolic syndrome prevalence may be different from that in developed health systems where the literature largely emanates from. The aim of this study is to describe the complications and complication rate following RSA in a South African cohort. An analytical, cross-sectional study was done where all patients’ who received RSA over an 11 year period at a tertiary hospital were evaluated. One-hundred-and-twenty-six primary RSA patients met the inclusion criteria and a detailed retrospective evaluation of their demographics, clinical variables and complication associated with their shoulder arthroplasty were assessed. All fracture, revision and tumour resection arthroplasties were excluded, and a minimum of 6 months follow up was required. A primary RSA complication rate of 19.0% (24/126) was noted, with the most complications occurring after 90 days at 54.2% (13/24). Instability was the predominant delayed complication at 61.5% (8/13) and sepsis being the most common in the early days at 45.5% (5/11). Haematoma formation, hardware failure and axillary nerve injury were also noted at 4.2% each (1/24). Keeping in mind the immense difference in socioeconomical status and patient demographics in a third world country the RSA complication rate in this study correlates with the known international consensus. This also proves that RSA is still a suitable option for rotator cuff arthropathy and glenohumeral osteoarthritis even in an economically constrained environment like South Africa

Aim. There are no studies in literature that analyze the effectiveness of closed-incisional negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) in the treatment of bone and joint infections (BJI). The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the application of ciNPWT in the postsurgical wound management of patients with osteoarticular infections. Method. We conducted a perspective single-center study on patients with BJI treated between 01/2022 and 10/2022 with ciNPWT dressing application at the end of the surgical procedure. All patients were treated by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach and operated by the same surgical equipe. Inclusion criteria were: presence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), fracture-related infection (FRI), osteomyelitis (OM), septic arthritis (SA) surgically treated, after which ciNPTW was applied over the closed surgical wound. 30 patients (19M, 11F) have been analyzed with mean age of 56,10±17,11 years old; BJIs were all localized in the lower limb (16 PJI, 12 FRI, 1 SA, 1 OM). Results. We considered the following clinical local pre-operative parameters: presence of fistula (10 patients, 33,33%), presence of erythema (18 patients, 60%), presence of previous flap in the incisional site (7 patients, 23,33%). In 11 cases (36,67%) more than 3 previous surgical procedures were performed in the surgical site. The following surgical procedures were performed: 8 debridement and implants removal, 7 DAIR, 3 one-stage exchange, 6 two-stage exchange, 3 spacer exchange, 3 resection arthroplasty. Nineteen patients (63,34%) showed no occurrence of any local post-operative complication (erythema, hematoma, wound breakdown, wound blister, necrosis). Seven (23,33%) patients showed the presence of one or more postoperative complications that didn't require additional surgery. We observed four (13,33%) failures, defined as the need for further surgical procedures following the onset of a local complication: two patients had a wound breakdown before wound closure and two had a recurrence of infection after an uneventfully wound closure. All failures were within the group of joint infection (PJI+SA) and were affected by a multi drug resistant pathogen. Conclusions. In our series four patients required further surgery, but only two cases were related to incisional wound problems, that is consistent with aseptic joint revision surgeries data that are available in literature (3.4%-6.9%)[1-2]. Patients affected by BJI are a group with significant high risk of failure and therefore the use of ciNPWT should be considered. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to establish the superiority of the ciNPWT dressing over the standard one

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Aim. Culture negative (CN) prosthetic joint infections (PJI) account for approximately 10% of all PJIs and present significant challenges for clinicians. We aimed to explore the significance of CN PJI within a large prospective cohort study, and to compare their characteristics and outcomes with culture positive cases. Methods. The Prosthetic joint Infection in Australia and New Zealand Observational (PIANO) study is a prospective, binational, multicentre observational cohort study conducted at 27 hospitals between July 2014 and December 2017. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes of all patients with culture negative (CN) prosthetic joint infection (PJI) from the PIANO cohort with culture positive (CP) cases. “Treatment success” was defined as absence of clinical or microbiological signs of infection, no need for ongoing antibiotics, and no need for revision or resection arthroplasty since the end of the initial treatment. We also describe PJI diagnostic criteria in the CN cohort and apply internationally recognised PJI diagnostic guidelines. Results. Of the 650 patients eligible for inclusion, 55 (8.5%) were CN and 595 were CP. Compared with the CP cohort, CN patients were more likely to be female [32 (58.2%) vs 245 (41.2%); p=0.02], involve the shoulder joint [5 (9.1%) vs. 16 (2.7%); p=0.03] and have a lower mean C-reactive protein (142 mg/L vs. 187 mg/L; p=0.02). Overall, outcomes were superior in CN patients, with culture negativity an independent predictor of treatment success at 24 months (aOR 3.78; 95%CI 1.65 – 8.67). Of the 55 CN cases meeting Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) diagnostic criteria, 45 (82%) met European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria (probable or definite) and 39 (71%) met the 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Conclusions. Culture negativity is an independent predictor of treatment success in PJI. It is unclear whether this is because some of them are not actually infections, or for other reasons such as lower bacterial load or earlier effective antibiotic treatment. Diagnostic criteria for PJI vary substantially in their sensitivity, with MSIS criteria being the least sensitive. Acknowledgements. This work is being presented on behalf of the broader PIANO investigators and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Network. The PIANO study received seed funding from Heraeus Medical and the John Hunter Hospital Charitable Trust Fund

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic shoulder infections has not been established, with a lack of randomised comparative studies. This systematic review compares the infection eradication rate and functional outcomes after single- or two-stage shoulder exchange arthroplasty, to permanent spacer implant or resection arthroplasty. Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2000 to June 2014, identified through international databases, were reviewed. Those reporting the success rate of infection eradication after a single-stage exchange, two-stage exchange, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant were included, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and sample size of 5 patients. Eight original articles reporting the results after resection arthroplasty (n = 83), 6 on single-stage exchange (n = 75), 13 on two-stage exchange (n = 142) and 8 papers on permanent spacer (n = 68) were included. The average infection eradication rate was 86.7% at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months (SD 20.8) after resection arthroplasty, 94.7% at 46.8 months (SD 17.6) after a single-stage exchange, 90.8% at 37.9 months (SD 12.8) after two-stage exchange, and 95.6% at 31.0 months (SD 9.8) following a permanent spacer implant. The difference was not statistically significant. Regarding functional outcome, patients treated with single-stage exchange had statistically significant better postoperative Constant scores (mean 51, SD 13) than patients undergoing a two-stage exchange (mean 44, SD 9), resection arthroplasty (mean 32, SD 7) or a permanent spacer implant (mean 31, SD 9) (p=0.029). However, when considering studies comparing pre- and post-operative Constant scores, the difference was not statistically significant. This systematic review failed to demonstrate a clear difference in infection eradication and functional improvement between all four treatment modalities for established periprosthetic shoulder infection. The relatively low number of patients and the methodological limitations of the studies available point out the need for well designed multi-center trials to further assess the best treatment option of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection

Aim. D-dimer is a widely available serum test that detects fibrinolytic activities that occur during infection. Prior studies have explored its utility for diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), but not explored its prognostic value for prediction of subsequent treatment failure. The purpose of this study was to: (1) assess the ability of serum D-dimer and other standard-of-care serum biomarkers to predict failure following reimplantation, and (2) establish a new cutoff value for serum D-dimer for prognostic use prior to reimplantation. Method. This prospective study enrolled 92 patients undergoing reimplantation between April 2015 and March 2019 who had previously undergone total hip/knee resection arthroplasty with placement of an antibiotic spacer for treatment of chronic PJI. Serum D-dimer level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured preoperatively for all patients. Failure following implantation was defined per the Delphi consensus criteria. Optimal cutoffs for D-dimer, ESR, and CRP were calculated based on ROC curves and compared in their association with failure following reimplantation criteria at minimum 1-year follow-up. Results. 15/92(16.3%) patients failed reimplantation surgery at mean follow up of 2.9 years (range 1.0–4.8). Optimal thresholds for D-Dimer, ESR and CRP were determined to be 1300ng/mL, 30mm/hr, and 1mg/L, respectively. The failure rate in patient with positive D-dimer was significantly higher at 32.0% (8/25) compared to those with negative D-dimer 10.6% (7/66); p=0.024. In comparison, 17.8% (8/45) of patients with ESR above threshold failed, compared to 13.89% (5/41) below (p=0.555) and 16.0% (4/25) of patients with CRP above threshold failed, compared to 16.1% (10/62) below (p=1.000). Conclusions. Patients with elevated D-Dimer appear to be at higher risk of failure after reimplantation surgery. This serum marker may be used to generate an additional data point in patients undergoing reimplantation surgery, especially in circumstances when optimal timing of reimplantation cannot be determined based on clinical circumstances

Aim. As the populations of patients who have multiple prosthetic joints increase these years, the fate of a single joint periprosthetic joint infection in these patients is still unknown. Risk factors leading to a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint are unclear. Our goal is to identify the risk factors of developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint and describe the organism profile to the second prosthetic infection. Method. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all PJI cases underwent surgical intervention at our institute, a tertiary care referral center over 11 years, during January 2006 to December 2016. We identified 96 patients with periprosthetic joint infection who had another prosthetic joint in place at the time of presentation. The comorbidity, number of prosthetic joints, date and type of each arthroplasty, times of recurrent infection at each prosthetic joint with subsequent debridement or 2-stage resection arthroplasty, organisms from every infection episode, the outcome of each periprosthetic joint infection in these patients were analyzed. Results. During January 2006 to May 2017, we retrospective collected 294 PJI cases (159 hips, 135 knees) in our institute. Patients with single prosthetic joint were excluded and finally 96 patients were included. Of the 96 patients, 19 (19.79%) developed a periprosthetic joint infection in a second joint. The type of organism was the same as the first infection in 12 (63.16%) of 19 patients. The time to developing a second infection averaged 2.16 years (range, 0–9.3 years). The risk factors leading to a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint are albumin level (< 3.5 mg/dl), long-term steroid usage (> 5mg/day, > 3 months), history of necrotizing fasciitis, history of invasive dental procedure (> Grade IV procedure), 3-stage resection arthroplasty or more, and PJI caused by vacomycin-resistent enterococcus (VRE). Conclusions. A PJI might predispose patients to subsequent PJI in another prosthesis. Patients and surgeons must be aware of the risk factors contribute to this devastating complication. Most organisms in the second PJI are identical to the first one, and we believe the bacteremia may be the pathogenesis, but need further proved. The preventive policy may be needed in the future for this population who has multiple prosthetic joints

Patients with neuromuscular disease and imbalance present a particularly challenging clinical situation for the orthopaedic hip surgeon. The cause of the neuromuscular imbalance may be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic disorders include those in which the hip is in development, such as cerebral palsy, polio, CVA, and other spinal cord injuries and disease. This can result in subluxation and dislocation of the hip in growing children, and subsequent pain, and difficulty in sitting and perineal care. Extrinsic factors involve previously stable hips and play a secondary role in the development of osteoarthritis and contractures in later life. Examples of extrinsic factors are Parkinson's disease, dyskinesis, athetosis, and multiple sclerosis. Goals of treatment in adults with pain and dysfunction in the setting of neuromuscular imbalance are to treat contractures and to perform salvage procedures to improve function and eliminate pain. Treatment of patients with neuromuscular imbalance may include resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone), arthrodesis, or total hip arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty is typically reserved for patients that are non-ambulatory, or hips that are felt to be so unstable that arthroplasty would definitely fail due to instability. In modern times arthrodesis has limited use as it negatively impacts function and self-care in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Total hip arthroplasty has the ability to treat pain, relieve contractures, and provide improved function. Due to the increased risk of instability, special considerations must be made during primary total hip arthroplasty in this patient cohort. Risk of instability may be addressed by surgical approach, head size, or use of alternative bearing constructs. Posterior approach may have increased risk of posterior dislocation in this patient group, particularly if a posterior capsular repair is not possible due to the flexion contractures and sitting position in many patients. Surgeons familiar with the approaches may utilise the anterolateral or direct anterior approach judicially. Release of the adductors may be performed in conjunction with primary total hip arthroplasty to help with post-operative range of motion and to decrease risk of instability. In a standard bearing, the selected head size should be the largest that can be utilised for the particular cup size. Rigorous testing of intra-operative impingement, component rotation, and instability is required. If instability cannot be adequately addressed by a standard bearing, the next option is a dual mobility bearing. Multiple studies have shown improved stability with the use of these bearings, but they are also at risk for instability, intraprosthetic dislocation, and fretting and corrosion of the modular connections. Another option is a constrained liner. However, this results in reduced range of motion, and an increased risk for mechanical complications of the construct. The use of a constrained liner in a primary situation should be limited to the most severe instability cases, and the patient should be counseled with the associated risks. If total hip arthroplasty results in repeated instability, revision surgery or Girdlestone arthroplasty may be considered

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious problem and requires great effort and cost for its treatment. Treatment options may vary from resection arthroplasty, retention of prosthesis with debridement, one stage revision and two stage revision with handmade antibiotic impregnated cement spacer or with prefabricated antibiotic loaded cement spacer. Two stage revision remains the gold standard for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). This study was aimed to find the efficacy and cost effectiveness of handmade antibiotic impregnated articulating cement spacer over commercially available prefabricated antibiotic loaded cement spacer for the treatment of deep PJI of hip prosthesis and to evaluate its functional outcome. Material and methods. A total of 23 PJI patients were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. In the two stages of revision, the first stage consisted of thorough debridement, implant removal and implantation of handmade articulating antibiotic impregnated cement spacer. The second stage surgery consisted of removal of cement spacer, thorough debridement and implantation of new prosthesis. All patients were followed for a period of 24 months. Results. A total of 23 patients (15 males and 8 females) underwent two stage revision arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection. The mean age of the patient was 57 years. The handmade antibiotic impregnated cement spacer was retained for 16– 20 weeks. Common organism observed was coagulase negative staphylococci followed by Staphylococcus aureus. After an average follow up of 2 years, 20 patients with PJI remained clinically free of infection. In 2 patients there was recurrence of infection. Conclusion. We conclude that two stage revision by hand made cement spacer is successful in eradication of infection with satisfactory functional outcome. Furthermore, these handmade cement spacer are cost effective and their efficacy may be comparable to commercially available prefabricated spacer

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised knee. Topics covered will include: (1) Exposure in the multiply operated knee (when to use quad snip, tibial tubercle osteotomy, other techniques); (2) Implant removal: Tips for removing stemmed implants; (3) Management of bone loss in multiply operated knees (metal cones/sleeves vs. structural allograft vs. particulate graft); (4) Level of constraint (when to use posterior stabilised, constrained condylar, and hinge) and management of instability in multiply operated knees; (5) Preferred management of infection in the multiply operated knee; (6) The extensor mechanism: Preferred deficient patellar bone management; Preferred extensor mechanism deficiency management; (7) When is it time to convert to a salvage procedure (i.e. fusion, resection arthroplasty, amputation)?; (8) Post-operative management: wound management; knee range of motion

CLS Spotorno expansion acetabular cup is in use since 1984 for uncemented Metal-Polyethylene (PE) total hip arthroplasties (THA). Metal-PE articulations are notoriously known to wear and lead to failure of THA. However, catastrophic breakage of expansion acetabular cup is rare. Our 74-year-old male who was diagnosed with bilateral osteonecrosis of femoral head, underwent bilateral THA using CLS Spotorno metal expansion acetabular cups (Protek, AG, Bern) in 1991. He had irregular follow-up since then. In 2005, he presented with right hip pain and inability to walk without support. Anteroposterior (AP) hip radiographs established the diagnosis of catastrophic failure of right THA secondary to severe liner wear and acetabular osteolysis. Patient chose to postpone the revision surgery and opted for wheel chair ambulation. He presented 4 years later, when the right hip pain became unbearable. Anteroposterior as well as lateral hip radiographs showed worsening of cup breakage with superolateral migration of metal femoral head. Pelvic CT scans confirmed severe acetabular osteolysis in DeLee and Charnley's Zone 1, 2 & 3 with secondary loss of bony support to the expansion cup [Fig. 1]. A revision THA was strongly advised. However, patient sought for a pain-free rather than a fully ambulatory right hip and decided against a second THA. We performed resection arthroplasty of right hip with bone cement loading, respecting patient's decision. Intra-operatively, the metal femoral head was lying in the huge osteolytic defect in the roof of acetabulum. The 3 cranial wings of metal expansion shell were broken with corresponding wear of the cranial pole of polyethylene liner [Fig. 2]. We were able to gratify patient's expectations and patient is able to ambulate with the aid of one crutch at latest follow-up. However, it is clearly evident that a timely and regular follow-up would have identified the initial PE wear and secondary osteolysis. Additionally, it can avoid extensive procedures like a revision THA or resection arthroplasty by allowing simple procedures like modular PE liner and the femoral head exchange. A comprehensive review of literature for catastrophic acetabular component breakage revealed 10 such cases, although with different cup designs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of CLS expansion cup breakage for metal-PE articulation. Majority of these cases have a presence of extensive liner wear and pelvic osteolysis along with a post-operative irregular follow up. This case stresses on importance of regular follow-up even after many years of index THA to identify early PE wear and prevent secondary catastrophic complications

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised hip. Topics covered will include: (1) Preferred exposure in multiply operated hip (when to use ETO, when not to use ETO, which type of ETO to use); (2) Implant removal: technical tips for cup removal; (3) Bone loss: favored acetabular reconstruction in severe bone loss (when to use cancellous graft, bulk graft, metal augments); favored acetabular reconstruction methods for different categories of bone loss; favored femoral reconstruction methods for the multiply operated hip; (4) Favored methods of preventing/managing hip instability (large head, dual mobility, constrained implants) in multiply operated hip; (5) When to accept resection arthroplasty as definitive procedure

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised knee. Topics covered will include: (1) Exposure in the multiply operated knee (when to use quad snip, tibial tubercle osteotomy, other techniques); (2) Level of constraint (when to use posterior stabilised, constrained condylar, and hinge) and management of instability in multiply operated knees; (3) Management of bone loss in multiply operated knees (metal cones/sleeves vs. structural allograft vs. particulate graft); (4) Preferred management of infection in the multiply operated knee; (5) When is it time to convert to a salvage procedure (i.e. fusion, resection arthroplasty, amputation)?

Aim. Treatment of enterococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is challenging due to heterogeneous pathogenesis, non-standardized management strategies and lack of biofilm-active antibiotics. Previous studies report treatment success from 50–76%. We evaluated the characteristics and outcome of enterococcal PJI, in particular the influence of antimicrobial treatment regimens. Method. Consecutive patients with enterococcal PJI treated at two specialized orthopaedic institutions were retrospectively included from 2010 to 2017. PJI was defined by the proposed European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria. Adequate antimicrobial treatment was considered when the antibiotic was appropiate for the treatment of enterococcal bone infections (activity, dose, oral bioavailability, bone penetration). The treatment success (defined as no relapse of enteroccal infection) and clinical success(i.e. infection-free status) was evaluated and compared using Fishers exact test. Results. We included 75 episodes with enterococcal PJI, involving 41 hip, 30 knee, 2 elbow, 1 shoulder prosthesis. The median patient age was 76 years (range, 30–90 years), 48 (64%) were female. The infection occurred perioperatively in 61 episodes (81%), haematogenously in 13 (17%) and by contiguous spread in 1 case. Sinus tract was present in 16 patients (21%), predominantly in polymicrobial compared to monomicrobial infections (13 vs. 3 episodes, p= 0.01). Preoperative serum C-reactive protein level was elevated in 63/75 patients (84%) and synovial fluid leukocyte count was increased in 25/29 patients (86%). Enterococci grew in synovial fluid in 76%, in periprosthetic tissue in 78% and in sonication fluid in 73% of patients. Predominantly, E. faecalis was identified (n=64), followed by E. faecium (n=10) and E. casseliflavus (n=1); mixed infections were diagnosed in 38 patients (51%). Two-stage prosthesis exchange was performed in 44 (59%), debridement and retention in 13 (17%), resection arthroplasty in 11 (15%) and one-stage exchange in 10 patients (13%). Of 66 patients with available follow-up data (median, 31.8 months; range, 0.3–83.3 months), the treatment success was 85% (56/66), however, clinical success was only 68% (45/66). Treatment success was similar in monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. Adequate antimicrobial treatment was associated with significant better outcome (91% vs. 38%, p=0.002). Treatment with fosfomycin (19/20, 95%) and combination therapy (45/50, 90%) was associated with better outcome, however, did not reach statistical significance (p >0.05). Conclusions. The treatment outcome of enterococcal PJI was high (85%), however, a second episode of PJI caused by a new pathogen was common in the later course. Adequate antimicrobial treatment was the only significant factor associated with better treatment success

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised knee. Topics covered will include: (1) Exposure in the multiply operated knee (when to use quad snip, tibial tubercle osteotomy, other techniques); (2) Implant removal: Tips for removing stemmed implants; (3) Management of bone loss in multiply operated knees (metal cones/sleeves vs. structural allograft vs. particulate graft); (4) Level of constraint (when to use posterior stabilised, constrained condylar, and hinge) and management of instability in multiply operated knees; (3) Management of bone loss in multiply operated knees (metal cones/sleeves vs. structural allograft vs. particulate graft); (5) Preferred management of infection in the multiply operated knee; (6) The extensor mechanism: Preferred deficient patellar bone management; Preferred extensor mechanism deficiency management; (7) When is it time to convert to a salvage procedure (i.e. fusion, resection arthroplasty, amputation)?; (8) Post-operative management: wound management; knee range of motion

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised hip. Topics covered will include: (1) Preferred exposure in multiply operated hip (when to use ETO, when not to use ETO, which type of ETO to use); (2) Implant removal: technical tips for cup removal; (3) Bone loss: favored acetabular reconstruction in severe bone loss (when to use cancellous graft, bulk graft, metal augments); favored acetabular reconstruction methods for different categories of bone loss; favored femoral reconstruction methods for multiply operated hip; (4) Favored methods of preventing/managing hip instability (large head, dual mobility, constrained implants) in multiply operated hip; (5) When to accept resection arthroplasty as definitive procedure