Aims

The outcomes of patients with unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and infection-free implant survival in UPCs during presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA and TKA at mid-term follow-up.

With an ageing population and an increasing number of primary arthroplasties performed, the revision burden is predicted to increase. The aims of this study were to 1. Determine the revision burden in an academic hospital over a 11-year period; 2. identify the direct hospital cost associated with the delivery of revision service and 3. ascertain factors associated with increased cost. This is an IRB-approved, retrospective, single tertiary referral center, consecutive case series. Using the hospital data warehouse, all patients that underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between 2008-2018 were identified. 1632 revisions were identified (1304 patients), consisting of 1061 hip and 571 knee revisions. The majority of revisions were performed for mechanical-related problems and aseptic loosening (n=903; 55.3%); followed by periprosthetic joint infection (n=553; 33.9%) and periprosthetic fractures (176; 10.8%). Cost and length of stay was determined for all patient. The direct in-hospital costs were converted to 2020 inflation-adjusted Canadian dollars. Several patients- (age; gender; HOMR- and ASA-scores; Hemoglobin level) and surgical- (indication for surgery; surgical site) factors were tested for possible associations. The number of revisions increased by 210% in the study period (2008 vs. 2018: 83 vs. 174). Revision indications changed over study period; with prevalence of fracture increasing by 460% (5 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2018) with an accompanying reduction in mechanical-related reasons, whilst revisions for infection remained constant. The mean annual cost over the entire study period was 3.9 MMCAD (range:2.4–5.1 MMCAD). The cost raised 150% over the study period from 2.4 MMCAD in 2008 to 3.6 MMCAD. Revisions for fractured had the greatest length of stay, the highest mean age, HOMR-score, ASA and cost associated with treatment compared to other revision indications (p < 0 .001). Patient factors associated with cost and length of stay included ASA- and HOMR-scores, Charlson-Comorbidity score and age. The revision burden increased 1.5-fold over the years and so has the direct cost of care delivery. The increased cost is primarily related to the prolonged hospital stay and increased surgical cost. For tertiary care units, these findings indicate a need to identify strategies on improving efficiencies whilst improving the quality of patient care (e.g. efficient ways of reducing acute hospital stay) and reducing the raise of the economic burden on a publicly funded health system

Aims. The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high-volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low-volume. Mean total hospital-specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. Results. High-volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While high-volume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 ($21 458 versus $20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 ($17 003 versus $16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher-volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high-volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p <  0.001). Conclusion. While a high-volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1611–17

Purpose. To establish the reliability of reporting and recording revision hip and knee arthroplasties by comparing data in the National Joint Registry (NJR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and our local theatre records. Methods. The paper theatre registers for all orthopaedic theatres in the Royal Derby Hospitals NHS Trust were examined for details of revision hip and knee replacements carried out in 2007 and 2008. This was then cross-checked and merged with the local electronic theatre data to obtain a definitive local record of all revision hip and knee arthroplasties. Data for the same period was requested from the NJR and HES and these data were checked against our definitive local record for discrepancies. The HES codes used were the same codes used to compile the recent NJR annual reports. Results. The theatre registers and ORMIS identified 271 revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the study period. The NJR had corresponding data for 176 (65%) of these, and HES had 250 (92%). 10 cases (4%) were not recorded by either NJR or HES: 8 secondary resurfacings of patellae and 2 posterior lip augmentations in hips. Of those operations “missed” by HES, most had been assigned a correct “W” code, but had a “Y” or “Z” OPCS code not used in the NJR annual reports. Conclusion. When HES and the NJR data are combined, they are an accurate representation of real practice. More robust methods of reporting revision arthroplasty to the NJR are required. The OPCS codes used to indicate a revision need to be reviewed

Aims

Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs.

Introduction

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Effective utilisation of blood products is fundamental. The introduction of Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedules (MSBOS) for operations provides guidance for effective cross-matching. A retrospective analysis of blood ordering practices was undertaken to establish an evidence-based MSBOS for revision THR and TKR. The impact of the use of intraoperative cell-salvage devices was also assessed.

Methods: The patient database was searched for cases of revision THR and TKR undertaken over 58 months. These records were then cross-referenced with the transfusion database. The cross-match to transfusion ratios (CTR) and transfusion indexes (TI) were calculated using this data.

The gold standard for the CTR is 2:1 or less. The TI establishes the likelihood of blood being transfused for a certain procedure. If the TI is less than 0.5, then cross-matching blood is considered unnecessary.

Results: For revisions of non-infected THR (n=269), the CTR=2.24 and TI=1.67. In infected cases (n=69), CTR=2.16 and TI=1.68.

In revisions of non-infected TKR (n=95), the CTR=4.33 and TI=0.48. In infected cases (n=54) the CTR=2.16 and TI=1.35.

There was considerable change in the practice of ordering cross-matched blood following the introduction of intraoperative cell-salvage devices (Revision THR: CTR=1.93, TI=0.84; Revision TKR: CTR=1.20, TI=0.16)

Discussion: The analysis confirmed that more blood was requested than was actually required. Overall the results suggest that cross-matching is still necessary for both the non-infected and infected revision THR but the number of units requested could be reduced to 2 units. In revision TKR, transfusions were more likely in infected cases and, a ‘group & save’ may be sufficient for non-infected cases.

The introduction of this MSBOS in conjunction with intraoperative cell-salvage, could promote blood conservation and financial savings.

Introduction: Effective utilisation of blood products is fundamental. The introduction of Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedules (MSBOS) for operations provides guidance for effective cross-matching. A retrospective analysis of blood ordering practices was undertaken to establish an evidence-based MSBOS for revision THR and TKR. The impact of the use of intraoperative cell-salvage devices was also assessed.

Methods: The patient database was searched for cases of revision THR and TKR undertaken over 58months. These records were then cross-referenced with the transfusion database. The cross-match to transfusion ratios (CTR) and transfusion indexes (TI) were calculated using this data.

The gold standard for the CTR is 2:1 or less. Procedures with ratios greater than 3:1 should substitute for a ‘group and save’. The TI establishes the likelihood of blood being transfused for a certain procedure, i.e., the number of units transfused divided by the number of patients having the procedure. If the TI is less than 0.5, then cross-matching blood is considered unnecessary.

Results: For revisions of non-infected THR (n=269), the CTR=2.24 and TI=1.67. In infected cases (n=69), CTR=2.16 and TI=1.68.

In revisions of non-infected TKR (n=95), the CTR=4.33 and TI=0.48. In infected cases (n=54) the CTR=2.16 and TI=1.35.

There was considerable change in the practice of ordering cross-matched blood following the introduction of intraoperative cell-salvage devices (Revision THR: CTR=1.93, TI=0.84; Revision TKR: CTR=1.20, TI=0.16)

Discussion: The analysis confirmed that more blood was requested than was actually required. Overall the results suggest that cross-matching is still necessary for both the non-infected and infected revision THR but the number of units requested could be reduced to 2units. In revision TKR, transfusions were more likely in infected cases and, a ‘group & save’ may be sufficient for non-infected cases.

The introduction of this MSBOS in conjunction with intraoperative cell-salvage, could promote blood conservation and financial savings.

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool. Methods. Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures. Results. The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation. Conclusion. Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):353–361

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) screening has reduced rates of MRSA infection in primary total hip (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacements. There are reports of increasing methicillin resistance (MR) in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci (CNS) causing arthroplasty infections. We examined microbiological results of all 2-stage THR/TKR revisions in Tayside from 2001–2010.

72 revisions in 67 patients were included; 30 THRs and 42 TKRs. Mean ages at revision were 89 and 72 years respectively. Male: female ratio 1.4:1.2-year survivorship for all endpoints: 96% in THRs and 88% in TKRs. 5-year survival: 83% and 84% respectively.

The most common organisms were SA (30%) and CNS (29%). Antibiotic resistance was more common amongst CNS. 72% of CNS were resistant to Methicillin versus 20% of SA. 80% of CNS were resistant to Gentamicin OR Methicillin versus 20% of SA. 32% (8/72 cases or 11% overall) of CNS were resistant to BOTH Gentamicin AND Methicillin, the primary arthroplasty antibiotic prophylaxis in our region, versus 4% of SA.

Harris Hip Scores and Knee Society Scores were lower post primary, prior to symptoms of infection in patients who had MR organisms cultured compared with those who had methicillin sensitive organisms. One-year post revision both groups recovered to similar scores.

Our data suggest MR-CNS cause significantly more arthroplasty infections than MRSA. Patients developing MR infections tend to have poorer post-primary knee and hip scores before symptoms of infection fully develop. 32% of CNS causing arthroplasty infections in our region are resistant to current routine primary antibiotic prophylaxis.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI. We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated. Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time. From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision. At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) continue to be a diagnostic challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Chronic PJI are sometimes difficult to diagnose and occasionally present in a subclinical fashion with normal CRP/ESR and/or normal joint aspiration. Some institutions advocate for routine use of intraoperative culture swabs at the time of all revision surgeries to definitively rule out infection. The purpose of this study is to determine whether routine intraoperative cultures is an appropriate and cost effective method of diagnosing subclinical chronic PJI in revision joint replacement patients with a low clinical suspicion for infection. We performed a retrospective chart review and identified 33 patients that underwent revision hip or knee replacement from a single surgeon over a five-month period. The AAOS guidelines for preoperative PJI workup were followed. 13 patients were diagnosed preoperatively with infection and excluded from the study. 20 patients underwent revision joint replacement and three separate cultures swabs were taken for each patient to help in determining true-positive cultures. Infectious Disease was consulted for all patients with any positive culture. Culture results were reviewed. At our hospital, the cost billed to insurance for a single culture is $1,458.58. We did not calculate the cost of the consultant fee. Three (15%) of the 20 revision arthroplasty patients had a single positive culture. Infectious Disease consultants diagnosed all three of these positive cultures as contaminants. None of the patients had a true-positive intraoperative culture. The total cost billed by the hospital to obtain these cultures in all 20 patients was $87,514.80. In our study, obtaining a set of three intraoperative cultures for those patients with a negative preoperative infection workup was not only cost prohibitive but did not diagnose a single subclinical infection. Studies to find other more reliable, accurate, and cost effective alternatives to diagnose PJI are warranted. In patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty with a low preoperative clinical suspicion for infection, it does not seem that routine intraoperative culture swabs are necessary or cost effective method for diagnosing subclinical periprosthetic joint infection

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine if a three-month course of microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduces the rate of failure due to further infection following two-stage revision for chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee.

Introduction. Infection after total joint arthroplasty is a challenging problem. Clinical symptoms, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, and cultures of synovial fluid obtained by means of percutaneous aspiration are commonly used to rule out the possibility of persistent infection before reimplantation. However, the sensitivity and specificity of the tests are low. Some authors have suggested that frozen-section analysis should always be performed during the reimplantation in order to rule out persistent infection. Methods. Retrospective review of 126 revision hip and knee arthroplasty procedure performed from 2002 - 2007 in Derriford Hospital, Plymouth NHS truts, UK. Frozen section was performed in 86 procedures out of the 126 procedures reviewed(68.2 %). A positive frozen section with more than 10 PNLs per HPF was compared with intra operative cultures results. The preoperative CRP results were recorded as well. Results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for frozen section were 45.5 %, 93.1%,50%, 95%, 94% respectively. Combining the intraoperative frozen section with the CRP results, the specificity was 100%. Discussion. A negative finding on intra operative analysis of frozen sections has a high predictive value with regard to ruling out the presence of infection; However, the sensitivity of the test for the detection of persistent infection is low. The data support the conclusion that the Frozen Section is reasonably specific but not a sensitive. Combining it with the preoperative CRP results led to increasing the specificity to 100% in our series

Aim

There is limited data on the frequency and impact of untoward events such as glove perforation, contamination of the surgical field (drape perforation, laceration, detachment), the unsterile object in the surgical field (hair, sweat droplet…), defecation, elevated air temperature…that may happen in the operating theatre. These events should influence the surgical site infection rate but it is not clear to what extent. We wanted to calculate the frequency and measure the impact of these events on the infection and general revision rate.

Aims

This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice.

Aims

To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty.