Aims

Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes; previously known as Propionibacterium acnes or P. acnes) periprosthetic hip and knee infections are under-reported. While culture contamination with C. acnes occurs, true infections are important to recognize and treat. We sought to describe the demographics and treatment outcomes of patients with C. acnes periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee.

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. Methods. This study included 297 patients undergoing presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA or TKA at a single treatment centre. All patients with at least three UPCs obtained during revision surgery were treated with minimum three months of oral antibiotics following revision surgery. The prevalence of UPCs and causative microorganisms, the recurrence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), and the infection-free implant survival were established at minimum five years’ follow-up (5.1 to 12.3). Results. Of the 297 patients undergoing aseptic revisions, 37 (12.5%) had at least three UPCs obtained during surgery. The UPC cohort included 23 males (62.2%) and 14 females (37.8%), with a mean age of 71.2 years (47 to 82). Comorbidities included smoking (56.8%), hypertension (48.6%), diabetes mellitus (27.0%), and chronic renal impairment (13.5%). The causative microorganisms included Staphylococcus epidermidis (49.6%), Bacillus species (18.9%), Micrococcus species (16.2%), and Cutibacterium acnes (16.2%). None of the study patients with UPCs developed further PJIs or required further surgical intervention during follow-up. Conclusion. The prevalence of UPCs during presumed aseptic revision THA and TKA was 12.5%. The most common causative microorganisms were of low virulence, and included S. epidermidis, Bacillus species, Micrococcus species, and C. acnes. Microorganism-specific antibiotic treatment for minimum three months’ duration of UPCs in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty was associated with excellent infection-free implant survival at mid-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):832–836

Aims. We aimed to determine the concentrations of synovial vancomycin and meropenem in patients treated by single-stage revision combined with intra-articular infusion following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), thereby validating this drug delivery approach. Methods. We included 14 patients with PJI as noted in their medical records between November 2021 and August 2022, comprising eight hip and seven knee joint infections, with one patient experiencing bilateral knee infections. The patients underwent single-stage revision surgery, followed by intra-articular infusion of vancomycin and meropenem (50,000 µg/ml). Synovial fluid samples were collected to assess antibiotic concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography. Results. The peak concentrations of vancomycin and meropenem in the joint cavity were observed at one hour post-injection, with mean values of 14,933.9 µg/ml (SD 10,176.3) and 5,819.1 µg/ml (SD 6,029.8), respectively. The trough concentrations at 24 hours were 5,495.0 µg/ml (SD 2,360.5) for vancomycin and 186.4 µg/ml (SD 254.3) for meropenem. The half-life of vancomycin was 6 hours, while that of meropenem ranged between 2 and 3.5 hours. No significant adverse events related to the antibiotic administration were observed. Conclusion. This method can achieve sustained high antibiotic concentrations within the joint space, exceeding the reported minimum biofilm eradication concentration. Our study highlights the remarkable effectiveness of intra-articular antibiotic infusion in delivering high intra-articular concentrations of antibiotics. The method provided sustained high antibiotic concentrations within the joint cavity, and no severe side-effects were observed. These findings offer evidence to improve clinical treatment strategies. However, further validation is required through studies with larger sample sizes and higher levels of evidence. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(10):535–545

Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with combined intravenous (IV) and topical antibiotic therapy in patients undergoing treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), utilizing the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria for classification.

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar.

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.

The October 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Risk factors for failure of total ankle arthroplasties; Effects of synovial fluid fracture haematoma to tissue-engineered cartilage; Coronal plane deformity in CMT-cavovarus feet using automated 3D measurements; Immediate weightbearing after ankle fracture fixation – is it safe?; Unlocking the mystery of Mueller-Weiss disease; Diabetic foot management: predictors of failure.

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Aims

Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit.

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

The June 2023 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee; Predicted waiting times for orthopaedic surgery: an urgent need to address the deficit in capacity; Vascular impulse technology versus elevation for reducing the swelling of upper and lower limb joint fractures; Desperate patients will accept higher risks; How long does it take to find a positive culture in periprosthetic joint infection?

The June 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Nail versus plate fixation for ankle fractures; Outcomes of first ray amputation in diabetic patients; Vascular calcification on plain radiographs of the ankle to diagnose diabetes mellitus; Elderly patients with ankle fracture: the case for early weight-bearing; Active treatment for Frieberg’s disease: does it work?; Survival of ankle arthroplasty; Complications following ankle arthroscopy.

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):474–480

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

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.