Aims. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

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. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

Aims. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626

Aims. Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. A retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review. Results. The rate of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 6.5%, with an eight-year survival of 95%. Significant bone loss (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute grade 3) was associated with cone revision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.002). The rate of cone revision for any reason was 17.7%, with an eight-year survival of 84%. Sixteen percent of knees developed PJI following revision. A pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol for infection was associated with both PJI (p < 0.001) and tibial cone revision (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Mid-term results of tibial cones showed a survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 95%. Patients with significant bone loss were more likely to have re-revision for tibial cone failure. Infection was common, and patients receiving cones at reimplantation were more likely to develop PJI and undergo cone revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):158–164

Aims. The aims of this study were to develop an in vivo model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in cemented hip hemiarthroplasty, and to monitor infection and biofilm formation in real-time. Methods. Sprague-Dawley rats underwent cemented hip hemiarthroplasty via the posterior approach with pre- and postoperative gait assessments. Infection with Staphylococcus aureus Xen36 was monitored with in vivo photoluminescent imaging in real-time. Pre- and postoperative gait analyses were performed and compared. Postmortem micro (m) CT was used to assess implant integration; field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) was used to assess biofilm formation on prosthetic surfaces. Results. All animals tolerated surgery well, with preservation of gait mechanics and weightbearing in control individuals. Postoperative in vivo imaging demonstrated predictable evolution of infection with logarithmic signal decay coinciding with abscess formation. Postmortem mCT qualitative volumetric analysis showed high contact area and both cement-bone and cement-implant interdigitation. FE-SEM revealed biofilm formation on the prosthetic head. Conclusion. This study demonstrates the utility of a new, high-fidelity model of in vivo PJI using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty in rats. Inoculation with bioluminescent bacteria allows for non-invasive, real-time monitoring of infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):9–16

Aims. Intra-articular administration of antibiotics during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may represent a safe, cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Vancomycin with an aminoglycoside provides antimicrobial cover for most organisms isolated from acute PJI after TKA. However, the intra-articular doses required to achieve sustained therapeutic intra-articular levels while remaining below toxic serum levels is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the intra-articular and serum levels of vancomycin and tobramycin over the first 24 hours postoperatively after intra-articular administration in primary cementless TKA. Methods. A prospective cohort study was performed. Patients were excluded if they had poor renal function, known allergic reaction to vancomycin or tobramycin, received intravenous vancomycin, or were scheduled for same-day discharge. All patients received 600 mg tobramycin and 1 g of vancomycin powder suspended in 25 cc of normal saline and injected into the joint after closure of the arthrotomy. Serum from peripheral venous blood and drain fluid samples were collected at one, four, and 24 hours postoperatively. All concentrations are reported in µg per ml. Results. A total of 22 patients were included in final analysis. At one, four, and 24 hours postoperatively, mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) serum concentrations were 2.4 (0.7 to 4.1), 5.0 (3.1 to 6.9), and 4.8 (2.8 to 6.9) for vancomycin and 4.9 (3.4 to 6.3), 7.0 (5.8 to 8.2), and 1.3 (0.8 to 1.8) for tobramycin; intra-articular concentrations were 1,900.6 (1,492.5 to 2,308.8), 717.9 (485.5 to 950.3), and 162.2 (20.5 to 304.0) for vancomycin and 2,105.3 (1,389.9 to 2,820.6), 403.2 (266.6 to 539.7), and 98.8 (0 to 206.5) for tobramycin. Conclusion. Intra-articular administration of 1 g of vancomycin and 600 mg of tobramycin as a solution after closure of the arthrotomy in primary cementless TKA achieves therapeutic intra-articular concentrations over the first 24 hours postoperatively and does not reach sustained toxic levels in peripheral blood. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1702–1708

Aims. As our population ages, the number of octogenarians who will require a total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises. In a value-based system where operative outcomes are linked to hospital payments, it is necessary to assess the outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of elective, primary THA in patients ≥ 80 years old to those aged < 80. Methods. A retrospective review of 10,251 consecutive THA cases from 2011 to 2019 was conducted. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)), as well as demographic, readmission, and complication data, were collected. Results. On average, the younger cohort (YC, n = 10,251) was a mean 61.60 years old (SD 10.71), while the older cohort (OC, n = 609) was 84.25 years old (SD 3.02) (p < 0.001). The OC had greater surgical risk based on their higher mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (2.74 (SD 0.63) vs 2.30 (SD 0.63); p < 0.001) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores (6.26 (SD 1.71) vs 3.87 (SD 1.98); p < 0.001). While the OC stayed in the hospital longer than the YC (mean 3.5 vs 2.5 days; p < 0.001), there were no differences in 90-day emergency visits (p = 0.083), myocardial infarctions (p = 0.993), periprosthetic joint infections (p = 0.214), dislocations (p = 0.993), or aseptic failure (p = 0.993). The YC was more likely to be readmitted within 90 days (3.88% vs 2.18%, Β = 0.57; p = 0.048). There were no observed differences in 12-week (p = 0.518) or one-year (p = 0.511) HOOS scores. Conclusion. Although patients ≥ 80 years old have a greater number of comorbidities than younger patients, they had equivalent perioperative complication rates and PRO scores. This study demonstrates the safety and success of elective THA in octogenarians. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):535–539

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss. Methods. Patients were identified from prospective data on all TKA patients with PJI following the primary procedure. Inclusion criteria were: revision for PJI with bone loss requiring reconstruction, and a minimum five years’ follow-up. Patients were followed up for recurrent infection and assessment of function. Tools used to assess function were Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS). Results. A total of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD 7.6), mean BMI of 33.3 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7), and median ASA grade of 2 (interquartile range 2 to 4). Mean time from primary to revision was 3.0 years (10 months to 8.3 years). At revision, six patients had discharging sinus and three patients had negative cultures from tissue samples or aspirates. Two patients developed recurrence of infection: one was treated successfully with antibiotic suppression and one underwent debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Mean AKSS scores at two years showed significant improvement from baseline (27.1 (SD 10.2 ) vs 80.3 (SD 14.8); p < 0.001). There was no significant change in mean AKSS scores between two and five years (80.3 (SD 14.8 ) vs 74.1 (SD 19.8); p = 0.109). Five-year OKS scores were not significantly different compared to two-year scores (36.17 (SD 3.7) vs 33.0 (SD 8.5); p = 0.081). Conclusion. ‘Two-in-one’ single-stage revision is effective for treating PJI following TKA with bone loss, providing patients with sustained improvements in outcomes and infection clearance up to five years post-procedure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):107–113

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Aims. To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. This retrospective cohort study comprised 18,979 consecutive hip and knee arthroplasties from a single high-volume academic hospital. At a median of 5.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5 to 8.1), all deaths and revisions were counted. To overcome the competing risk of death, competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was applied to analyze the association between different stages of CKD and revisions. Confounding factors such as diabetes and BMI were considered using either a stratified CIF or the Fine and Gray model. Results. There were 2,111 deaths (11.1%) and 677 revisions (3.6%) during the follow-up period. PJI was the reason for revision in 162 cases (0.9%). For hip arthroplasty, 3.5% of patients with CKD stage 1 (i.e. normal kidney function, NKF), 3.8% with CKD stage 2, 4.2% with CKD stage 3, and 0% with CKD stage 4 to 5 had undergone revision within eight years. For knee arthroplasty, 4.7% with NKF, 2.7% with CKD stage 2, 2.4% with CKD stage 3, and 7% of CKD stage 4 to 5 had had undergone revision. With the exception of knee arthroplasty patients in whom normal kidney function was associated with a greater probability of all-cause revision, there were no major differences in the rates of all-cause revisions or revisions due to PJIs between different CKD stages. The results remained unchanged when diabetes and BMI were considered. Conclusion. We found no strong evidence that CKD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause or PJI-related revision. Selection bias probably explains the increased amount of all-cause revision operations in knee arthroplasty patients with normal kidney function. The effect of stage 4 to 5 CKD was difficult to evaluate because of the small number of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):689–695

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results. Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are among the most devastating complications after joint arthroplasty. There is limited evidence on the efficacy of different antiseptic solutions on reducing biofilm burden. The purpose of the present study was to test the efficacy of different antiseptic solutions against clinically relevant microorganisms in biofilm. Methods. We conducted an in vitro study examining the efficacy of several antiseptic solutions against clinically relevant microorganisms. We tested antiseptic irrigants against nascent (four-hour) and mature (three-day) single-species biofilm created in vitro using a drip-flow reactor model. Results. With regard to irrigant efficacy against biofilms, Povidone-iodine treatment resulted in greater reductions in nascent MRSA biofilms (logarithmic reduction (LR) = 3.12; p < 0.001) compared to other solutions. Bactisure treatment had the greatest reduction of mature Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms (LR = 1.94; p = 0.032) and a larger reduction than Vashe or Irrisept for mature Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms (LR = 2.12; p = 0.025). Pooled data for all biofilms tested resulted in Bactisure and Povidone-iodine with significantly greater reductions compared to Vashe, Prontosan, and Irrisept solutions (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Treatment failure in PJI is often due to failure to clear the biofilm; antiseptics are often used as an adjunct to biofilm clearance. We tested irrigants against clinically relevant microorganisms in biofilm in vitro and showed significant differences in efficacy among the different solutions. Further clinical outcome data is necessary to determine whether these solutions can impact PJI outcome in vivo. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):908–915

Aims. Monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) or neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are useful for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but their diagnostic values are unclear for screening fixation-related infection (FRI) in patients for whom conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) is planned after failed internal fixation for femoral neck fracture. Methods. We retrospectively included 340 patients who underwent conversion THA after internal fixation for femoral neck fracture from January 2008 to September 2020. Those patients constituted two groups: noninfected patients and patients diagnosed with FRI according to the 2013 International Consensus Meeting Criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine maximum sensitivity and specificity of these two preoperative ratios. The diagnostic performance of the two ratios combined with preoperative CRP or ESR was also evaluated. Results. The numbers of patients with and without FRI were 19 (5.6%) and 321 (94.4%), respectively. Areas under the ROC curve for diagnosing FRI were 0.763 for MLR, 0.686 for NLR, 0.905 for CRP, and 0.769 for ESR. Based on the Youden index, the optimal predictive cutoffs were 0.25 for MLR and 2.38 for NLR. Sensitivity and specificity were 78.9% and 71.0% for MLR, and 78.9% and 56.4% for NLR, respectively. The combination of CRP with MLR showed a sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 94.6%, while the corresponding values for the combination of CRP with NLR were 89.5% and 91.5%, respectively. Conclusion. The presence of preoperative FRI among patients undergoing conversion THA after internal fixation for femoral neck fracture should be determined. The combination of preoperative CRP with NLR is sensitive tool for screening FRI in those patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1534–1540

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):423–429

Aims. Deep surgical site infection (SSI) remains an unsolved problem after hip fracture. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) has become a mainstream treatment in elective periprosthetic joint infection; however, evidence for DAIR after infected hip hemiarthroplaty is limited. Methods. Patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty between March 2007 and August 2018 were reviewed. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify and adjust for risk factors for SSI, and to identify factors predicting a successful DAIR at one year. Results. A total of 3,966 patients were identified. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7% (51 patients (1.3%) with deep SSI, and 18 (0.45%) with superficial SSI). In all, 50 patients underwent revision surgery for infection (43 with DAIR, and seven with excision arthroplasty). After adjustment for other variables, only concurrent urinary tract infection (odds ratio (OR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 4.92; p < 0.001) and increasing delay to theatre for treatment of the fracture (OR 1.31 per day, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; p < 0.001) were predictors of developing a SSI, while a cemented arthroplasty was protective (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96; p = 0.031). In all, nine patients (20.9%) were alive at one year with a functioning hemiarthroplasty following DAIR, 20 (46.5%) required multiple surgical debridements after an initial DAIR, and 18 were converted to an excision arthroplasty due to persistent infection, with six were alive at one year. The culture of any gram-negative organism reduced success rates to 12.5% (no cases were successful with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas infection). Favourable organisms included Citrobacter and Proteus (100% cure rate). The all-cause mortality at one year after deep SSI was 55.87% versus 24.9% without deep infection. Conclusion. Deep infection remains a devastating complication regardless of the treatment strategy employed. Success rates of DAIR are poor compared to total hip arthroplasty, and should be reserved for favourable organisms in patients able to tolerate multiple surgical procedures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):958–965

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. Methods. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus. Results. Overall, 76 patients (90.5%) were infection-free at a mean follow-up of seven years, with eight reinfections (9.5%). Culture-negative PJI was not associated with a higher reinfection rate (p = 0.343). However, there was a significantly higher rate of recurrence in patients with polymicrobial infections (p = 0.003). The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) improved from 18.7 (SD 8.7) preoperatively to 33.8 (SD 9.7) at six months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for all causes of reoperation, including reinfection and aseptic failure, was 95.2% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.7 to 98.2), 83.5% at five years (95% CI 73.2 to 90.3), and 78.9% at 12 years (95% CI 66.8 to 87.2). Conclusion. One-stage exchange, using a strict debridement protocol and multidisciplinary input, is an effective treatment option for the infected TKA. This is the largest single-surgeon series of consecutive cases reported to date, with broad inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):305–313

Aims. The efficacy and safety of intrawound vancomycin for preventing surgical site infection in primary hip and knee arthroplasty is uncertain. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, indexed from inception to March 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. All studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of intrawound vancomycin in patients who underwent primary hip and knee arthroplasty were included. Incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, aseptic wound complications, acute kidney injury, anaphylactic reaction, and ototoxicity were meta-analyzed. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of included studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results. Nine studies involving 4,607 patients were included. Intrawound vancomycin was associated with lower incidence of PJI (30 patients (1.20%) vs 58 control patients (2.75%); OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.69) and simultaneous acute kidney injury (four patients (0.28%) vs four control patients (0.35%), OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.55). However, it did not reduce risk of superficial infection (four patients (0.67%) vs six control patients (1.60%), OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.12) and was associated with higher incidence of aseptic wound complications (23 patients (2.15%) vs eight in control patients (0.96%), OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.23). Four studies reported no anaphylactic reactions and three studies reported no ototoxicity in any patient group. Conclusion. The current literature suggests that intrawound vancomycin used in primary hip and knee arthroplasty may reduce incidence of PJI, but it may also increase risk of aseptic wound complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):778–788

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Aims. Recent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs have featured more anatomical morphologies and shorter tibial keels. However, several reports have raised concerns about the impact of these modifications on implant longevity. The aim of this study was to report the early performance of a modern, cemented TKA design. Methods. All patients who received a primary, cemented TKA between 2012 and 2017 with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. The implant investigated features an asymmetrical tibial baseplate and shortened keel. Patient demographic details, Knee Society Scores (KSS), component alignment, and the presence of radiolucent lines at final follow-up were recorded. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate survivorship. Results. A total of 720 of 754 primary TKAs (95.5%) were included with a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (SD 1.3); 562 (78.1%) were cruciate-retaining and 158 (21.9%) were posterior-stabilized. A total of 11 (1.5%) required reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection and seven (1.0%) for aseptic tibial loosening (five cruciate-retaining, two posterior-stabilized). Loosening occurred at a mean of 3.3 years (0.9 to 6.5). There were no cases of loosening in the 33 patients who received a 14 mm × 30 mm tibial stem extension. All-cause survivorship was 96.6% at three years (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.3% to 98.0%) and 96.2% at five years (95% CI 94.8% to 97.7%). Survivorship with revision for aseptic loosening was 99.6% at three years (95% CI 99.1% to 100.0%) and 99.1% at five years (95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%). Tibial components were in significantly more varus in those with aseptic loosening (mean 3.4° (SD 3.7°) vs 1.3° (SD 2.0°); p = 0.015). There were no other differences in demographic, radiological, or surgical characteristics between revised and non-revised TKAs for aseptic loosening (p = 0.293 to 1.00). Mean KSS improved significantly from 57.3 (SD 9.5) preoperatively to 92.6 (SD 8.9) at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. This is the largest series to date of this design of implant. At short-term follow-up, the rate of aseptic tibial loosening is not overly concerning. Further observation is required to determine if there will be an abnormal rate of loosening at mid- to long-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):51–58

Aims. This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing ALBC versus PBC, reporting on revision rates for PJI or all-cause revision following primary elective THA or TKA. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42018107691). Results. Nine studies and one registry report were identified, enabling the inclusion of 371,977 THA and 671,246 TKA. Pooled analysis for THA demonstrated ALBC was protective against revision for PJI compared with PBC (relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; p < 0.001), however, no differences were seen for all-cause revision rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.09; p = 0.100). For TKA, there were no significant differences in revision rates for PJI or all causes between ALBC and PBC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45; p = 0.730, and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; p = 0.060, respectively). Conclusion. ALBC demonstrated a protective effect against revision for PJI compared with PBC in THA with no difference in all-cause revisions. No differences in revision rates for PJI and all-cause revision between ALBC and PBC for TKA were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):7–15