Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection can be difficult due to the high rate of culture-negative infections. The aim of this study was to assess the use of next-generation sequencing for detecting organisms in synovial fluid. Materials and Methods. In this prospective, single-blinded study, 86 anonymized samples of synovial fluid were obtained from patients undergoing aspiration of the hip or knee as part of the investigation of a periprosthetic infection. A panel of synovial fluid tests, including levels of C-reactive protein, human neutrophil elastase, total neutrophil count, alpha-defensin, and culture were performed prior to next-generation sequencing. Results. Of these 86 samples, 30 were alpha-defensin-positive and culture-positive (Group I), 24 were alpha-defensin-positive and culture-negative (Group II) and 32 were alpha-defensin-negative and culture-negative (Group III). Next-generation sequencing was concordant with 25 results for Group I. In four of these, it detected antibiotic resistant bacteria whereas culture did not. In another four samples with relatively low levels of inflammatory biomarkers, culture was positive but next-generation sequencing was negative. A total of ten samples had a positive next-generation sequencing result and a negative culture. In five of these, alpha-defensin was positive and the levels of inflammatory markers were high. In the other five, alpha-defensin was negative and the levels of inflammatory markers were low. While next-generation sequencing detected several organisms in each sample, in most samples with a higher probability of infection, there was a predominant organism present, while in those presumed not to be infected, many organisms were identified with no predominant organism. Conclusion. Pathogens causing periprosthetic infection in both culture-positive and culture-negative samples of synovial fluid could be identified by next-generation sequencing. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:127–33

The December 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: Vitamin E infusion helpful in polyethylene; Hip replacement in fracture and arthritis; Non-surgical treatment for arthritis; Cost and approach in hip surgery; Who does well in FAI surgery?; AAOS Thromboembolism guidelines; Thromboprophylaxis and periprosthetic joint infection; Fluid collections not limited to metal-on-metal THR

The December 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: Biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infection; HbA1c and complications in arthroplasty; Getting to the bottom of biofilms; Effective antibiosis for biofilms; Stem cells and avascular necrosis; Predicting LOS in total joint arthroplasty; Long-term antibiotics reduce recurrence in periprosthetic infection

Aims. The number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) that are performed is expected to increase. However, previous reports of the causes of failure after TKA are limited in that they report the causes at specific institutions, which are often dependent on referral patterns. Our aim was to report the most common indications for re-operations and revisions in a large series of posterior-stabilised TKAs undertaken at a single institution, excluding referrals from elsewhere, which may bias the causes of failure. Patients and Methods. A total of 5098 TKAs which were undertaken between 2000 and 2012 were included in the study. Re-operations, revisions with modular component exchange, and revisions with non-modular component replacement or removal were identified from the medical records. The mean follow-up was five years (two to 12). Results. The Kaplan-Meier ten-year survival without a re-operation, modular component revision and non-modular component revision was 95.7%, 99.3% and 95.3%, respectively. The most common indications for a re-operation were: post-operative stiffness (58%), delayed wound healing (21%), and patellar clunk (11%). The indications for isolated modular component revision were acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (64%) and instability (36%). The most common indications for non-modular component revision were chronic PJI (52%), aseptic loosening (17%), periprosthetic fracture (10%), and instability (10%). Conclusion. Post-operative stiffness remains the most common indication for re-operation after TKA. Infection is the most common indication for modular and non-modular component revision. Aseptic loosening was not an uncommon cause of failure, however, it was much less common than in national registry and non-registry data. Focusing on posterior-stabilised TKAs initially performed at our institution allowed for an accurate assessment of the causes of failure in a contemporary specialty practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:647–52

Aims. There is inconsistent evidence on whether prior spinal fusion surgery adversely impacts outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between pre-existing spinal fusion surgery and the rate of complications following primary THA. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to October 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision in patients following primary THA with or without pre-existing spinal fusion surgery. Furthermore, we compared short (two or less levels) or long (three or more levels) spinal fusions to no fusion. Summary measures of association were relative risks (RRs) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). Results. We identified ten articles corresponding to nine unique observational studies comprising of 1,992,366 primary THAs. No RCTs were identified. There were 32,945 cases of spinal fusion and 1,752,362 non-cases. Comparing prior spinal fusion versus no spinal fusion in primary THA, RRs (95% CI) for dislocation was 2.23 (1.81 to 2.74; seven studies), revision 2.14 (1.63 to 2.83; five studies), periprosthetic joint infection 1.71 (1.53 to 1.92; four studies), periprosthetic fracture 1.52 (1.28 to 1.81; three studies), aseptic loosening 1.76 (1.54 to 2.01; three studies), and any complications 2.82 (1.37 to 5.80; three studies) were identified. Both short and long spinal fusions, when compared with no fusion, were associated dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision. Conclusions. Patients with prior spinal fusion are at risk of adverse events following primary THA. Measures that reduce the risk of these complications should be considered in this high-risk population when undergoing primary THA. These patients should also be counselled appropriately around their risks of undergoing THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):664–670

The number of arthroplasties being undertaken is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of several new strategies, which are discussed in this review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1162–9

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most feared and challenging complications following total knee arthroplasty. We provide a detailed description of our current understanding regarding the management of PJI of the knee, including diagnostic aids, pre-operative planning, surgical treatment, and outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):20–9

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the serum level of interleukin 6 (IL-6) could be used to identify the persistence of infection after the first stage of a two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection. . Between 2010 and 2011, we prospectively studied 55 patients (23 men, 32 women; mean age 69.5 years; 36 to 86) with a periprosthetic joint infection. Bacteria were identified in two intra-operative tissue samples during re-implantation in 16 patients. These cases were classified as representing persistent infection. To calculate a precise cut-off value which could be used in everyday clinical practice, a 3 x 2 contingency table was constructed and manually defined. We found that a serum IL-6 ≥ 13 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating infection: its positive-predictive value is 90.9%. A serum IL-6 ≤ 8 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating an absence of infection: its negative predictive value is 92.1%. The serum IL-6 level seems to be a reasonable marker for identifying persistent infection after the first stage of a revision joint arthroplasty and before attempting re-implantation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:71–5

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication for patients and results in greatly increased costs of care for both healthcare providers and patients. More than 15 500 revision hip and knee procedures were recorded in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2013, with infection accounting for 13% of revision hip and 23% of revision knee procedures. We report our experience of using antibiotic eluting absorbable calcium sulphate beads in 15 patients (eight men and seven women with a mean age of 64.8 years; 41 to 83) as part of a treatment protocol for PJI in revision arthroplasty. . The mean follow-up was 16 months (12 to 22). We report the outcomes and complications, highlighting the risk of hypercalcaemia which occurred in three patients. We recommend that serum levels of calcium be routinely sought following the implantation of absorbable calcium sulphate beads in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1237–41

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication which can follow a total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Although rare, this ongoing threat undermines the success of TJA, a historically reputable procedure. It has haunted the orthopedic community for decades and several ongoing studies have provided insights and new approaches to effectively battle this multilayered problem

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking. Patients and Methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment for 50 consecutive culture-negative and 50 consecutive culture-positive patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for chronic infection with a minimum follow-up of five years. Results. There was no significant difference in the outcomes between the two groups of patients, with a similar rate of re-infection of 6%, five years post-operatively. Culture-negative PJIs were associated with older age, smoking, referral from elsewhere and pre-operative antibiotic treatment. The samples in the culture-negative patients were negative before the first stage (aspiration), during the first-stage (implant removal) and second-stage procedures (re-implantation). Conclusion. Adherence to strict protocols for selecting and treating culture-negative patients with a PJI using the same two-stage revision approach that we employ for complex culture-positive PJIs is important in order to achieve control of the infection in this difficult group of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;(1 Supple A)100-B:3–8

Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients. . The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1450–2

We hypothesised that the use of tantalum (Ta) acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was protective against subsequent failure due to infection. We identified 966 patients (421 men, 545 women and 990 hips) who had undergone revision THA between 2000 and 2013. The mean follow up was 40.2 months (3 months to 13.1 years). The mean age of the men and women was 62.3 years (31 to 90) and 65.1 years (25 to 92), respectively. . Titanium (Ti) acetabular components were used in 536 hips while Ta components were used in 454 hips. In total, 73 (7.3%) hips experienced subsequent acetabular failure. The incidence of failure was lower in the Ta group at 4.4% (20/454) compared with 9.9% (53/536) in the Ti group (p < 0.001, odds ratio 2.38; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.27). Among the 144 hips (64 Ta, 80 Ti) for which revision had been performed because of infection, failure due to a subsequent infection was lower in the Ta group at 3.1% (2/64) compared with 17.5% (14/80) for the Ti group (p = 0.006). . Thus, the use of Ta acetabular components during revision THA was associated with a lower incidence of failure from all causes and Ta components were associated with a lower incidence of subsequent infection when used in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:45–9

Aims

The use of a porous metal shell supported by two augments with the ‘footing’ technique is one solution to manage Paprosky IIIB acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to assess the medium-term implant survival and radiological and clinical outcomes of this technique.

Aims

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration.

Aims

Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction.

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?

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss.

Aims

There are limited long-term studies reporting on outcomes of the Zimmer Modular Revision (ZMR) stem, and concerns remain regarding failure. Our primary aim was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure for this modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims included evaluating radiological and functional outcomes.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicates between 0.5% and 1.2% primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and may have devastating consequences. The traditional assessment of patients suffering from PJI has involved the serological study of inflammatory markers and microbiological analysis of samples obtained from the joint space. Treatment has involved debridement and revision arthroplasty performed in either one or two stages. . We present an update on the burden of PJI, strategies for its diagnosis and treatment, the challenge of resistant organisms and the need for definitive evidence to guide the treatment of PJI after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):27–30