Cementless One-Stage Revision in Chronic Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection. Ninety-One Percent Infection Free Survival in 56 Patients at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review

Prosthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection using primary cementless stems as first-line implants: About 35 cases

INTRODUCTION

During infected total hip arthroplasty revisions (THAR), the need for systematic antibiotic cementation remains undefined.

HYPOTHESIS

Implantation of a primary cementless stem as first-line implant in 1-stage septic THAR provides results as good as those from a stem cemented with antibiotics in terms of infection resolution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 35 patients operated on for septic THAR with Avenir® cementless stem placement - between 2008 and 2018 at Besançon University Hospital - with a minimum follow-up of 2 years to define healing in the absence of infectious recurrence. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris, Oxford, and Merle D'Aubigné scores. Osseointegration was analyzed by the Engh radiographic score.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 5±2.6 years (2-11). The infection was cured in 32 of 35 (91.4%) patients. The median scores of the following were: Harris 77/100, Oxford 47.5/60 and Merle d'Aubigné 15/18. Of 32 femoral stems, 31 (96.8%) had radiographically stable osseointegration. Age greater than 80 years was a risk factor for failure to cure the infection during septic THAR.

DISCUSSION

A primary cementless stem as first-line implant plays a role in 1-stage septic THAR. It confers good results in terms of infection resolution and stem integration in the setting of loss of femoral bone substances rated Paprosky 1.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective case series.

Single-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection after knee and hip arthroplasties: indications and treatments

Single-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection has been introduced 40 years ago. This option is gaining more and more attention as well as popularity. It is a reliable treatment for the chronic periprosthetic joint infection after knee and hip arthroplasties when implemented by an experienced multi-disciplinary team. However, its indications and corresponding treatments remain controversial. This review focused on the indications and specific treatments related to the option, with an attempt to help surgeons to use this method with more favorable outcomes.

Successful eradication rate following one-stage septic knee and hip exchange in selected pre-operative culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections

PURPOSE

The main requirement for performing the one-stage septic exchange is the pre-operative identification of the pathogen and its susceptibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success rate with special focus on reinfection in a cohort of patients who underwent one-stage septic knee or hip revision for pre-operative culture-negative PJI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 640 patients treated by one-stage revision for chronic knee or hip PJI between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Only cases with pre-operative culture-negative PJI, with culture-negative synovial aspirations and one negative open biopsy, were analyzed. We evaluated the septic and aseptic complication and the rate of complication-free survival defined as the time from the date of first operation and the date of complication events.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients fulfilled the inclusion and were enrolled. The mean age of the group was 73.2 ± 9.8 years, with a median ASA score of 3 (range 3-4). After mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.6 years, 86.4% (19 out of 22) of patients reported no complications. Two patients (9.1%) after one-stage hip required revision arthroplasty due to septic failure, while one patient (4.5%) with one-stage knee had revision for femoral component aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that the absence of pre-operative pathogen detection may not be contraindication to the one-stage revision in selected patients. The one-stage exchange might be considered in patients with pre-operative negative cultures in presence of ASA > 3 and multiple comorbidities that are not able to tolerate multiple surgeries.

Is a preoperative pathogen detection a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip?

BACKGROUND

A preoperative pathogen detection is considered a prerequisite before undergoing one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to most guidelines. This study compares patients with and without preoperative pathogen detection undergoing one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip. The authors put up the hypothesis that a preoperative pathogen detection is no prerequisite in selected cases undergoing one-stage exchange.

METHODS

30 consecutive patients with PJI of the hip, treated with one-stage exchange, between 2011 and 2021, were retrospectively included. Mean age was 70 years and mean follow-up 2.1 ± 1.8 years. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society. One-stage exchange was performed in (1) chronic PJI longer than 4 weeks, (2) well-retained bone condition, (3) absence of multiple prior revisions for PJI (≤ 2) with absence of difficult-to-treat pathogens in the past, and (4) necessity/preference for early mobility due to comorbidities/age.

RESULTS

One-stage exchange was performed in 20 patients with and in 10 without a preoperative pathogen detection. Age (71 years, 68 years, p = 0.519), sex (50% and 30% males, p = 0.440), American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (2.2, 2.4, p = 0.502), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3, 4, p = 0.530) did not differ among the two groups. No significant differences were noted concerning preoperative CRP (15 mg/l, 43 mg/l, p = 0.228), synovial cell count (15.990/nl, 5.308/nl, p = 0.887), radiological signs of loosening (55%, 50%, p = 0.999), and intraoperative histopathology. Except a higher rate of coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%, 20%, p = 0.019) in patients with a preoperative pathogen detection, no significant differences in pathogen spectrum were identified among groups. Revision for PJI recurrence was performed in one patient with an initial preoperative pathogen detection (3.3%). Additional revisions were performed for dislocation in two and postoperative hematoma in one patient. Revision rate for both septic and aseptic causes (p = 0.999), stay in hospital (16 and 15 days, p = 0.373) and modified Harris Hip Score (60, 71, p = 0.350) did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with and without a preoperative pathogen detection did not show significant differences concerning baseline characteristics, clinical and functional outcomes at 2 years. An absent preoperative pathogen detection is no absolute contraindication for one-stage exchange in chronic PJI, if involving good bone quality and absence of multiple prior revisions.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI)—Results of One-Stage Revision with Antibiotic-Impregnated Cancellous Allograft Bone—A Retrospective Cohort Study

Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), considering control of infection, functional results as well as quality of life. Difficulties in treatment derive from the formation of biofilms within a few days after infection. Biofilms are tolerant to systemically applied antibiotics, requiring extreme concentrations for a prolonged period. Minimum biofilm eradicating concentrations (MBEC) are only feasible by the local application of antibiotics. One established approach is the use of allograft bone as a carrier, granting a sustained release of antibiotics in very high concentrations after appropriate impregnation. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of reinfection after a one-stage revision of infected hip or knee prostheses, using antibiotic-impregnated allograft bone as the carrier and avoiding cement. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 January 2018, 87 patients with PJI, according to MSIS, underwent a one-stage revision with antibiotic-impregnated cancellous allograft bone. An amount of 17 patients had insufficient follow-ups. There were 70 remaining patients (34 male, 36 female) with a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 2–15.6) and with a mean age of 68.2 years (range 31.5–86.9). An amount of 38 hips and 11 knees were implanted without any cement; and 21 knees were implanted with moderate cementing at the articular surface with stems always being uncemented. Within 2 years after surgery, 6 out of 70 patients (8.6%, CI 2–15.1) showed reinfection and after more than 2 years, an additional 6 patients showed late-onset infection. Within 2 years after surgery, 11 out of 70 patients (15.7%, CI 7.2–24.2) had an implant failure for any reason (including infection) and after more than 2 years, an additional 7 patients had an implant failure. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis for all 87 patients, the estimated survival for reinfection was 93.9% (CI 88.8–99.1) at 1 year, 89.9% (CI 83.2–96.6) at 2 years and 81.5% (CI 72.1–90.9) at 5 years. The estimated survival for implant failure for any reason was 90.4% (CI 84.1–96.7) at 1 year, 80.9% (CI 72.2–89.7) at 2 years and 71.1% (CI 60.3–81.8) at 5 years. One-stage revision with antibiotic-impregnated cancellous allograft bone grants comparable results regarding infection control as with multiple stages, while shortening rehabilitation, improving quality of life for the patients and reducing costs for the health care system.

Early periprosthetic hip joint infection managed by cementless one-stage revision – a case series

Background: Early periprosthetic hip joint infection (PJI) is traditionally treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). However, infection control rates after DAIR-treated periprosthetic hip joint infection do not exceed 77 %. Cementless one-stage revision of chronic PJI by the Cementless One-stage Revision of Infected Hip Arthroplasty (CORIHA) protocol has been evaluated positively with a 91 % success rate. We wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of cementless one-stage revision following the CORIHA protocol for early PJI in elective primary total hip arthroplasty, regarding risk of re-operation with exchange of implants. Methods: We identified 18 patients in our center with early (≤6-week postoperative) PJI after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) treated with one-stage cementless revision in the period January 2012–March 2018. Treatment followed the CORIHA protocol. Primary outcome was retention of implants at the most recent follow-up. Patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years. Results: Mean follow-up time was 60 months (39–105). All patients retained their implants, but two required superficial soft tissue debridement due to persistent wound seepage. Conclusion: Cementless one-stage revision appears to be an effective treatment of early PJI after primary THA and at least an equal choice of treatment compared with DAIR. Whether the potential benefit of a lower re-revision rate for postoperative PJI outweighs the increased surgical complexity of the CORIHA procedure needs further evaluation.

Cement-in-cement revision of the femur in infected hip arthroplasty in 89 patients across two centres

AIMS

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

METHODS

We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases.

RESULTS

Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212-220.

A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study of Periprosthetic Hip Infection Treated by one-stage Method Including Cases With Bone Graft Reconstruction

Purpose:

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that can affect hip arthroplasty. Its treatment is extremely difficult, and issues regarding the optimal treatment remain unanswered. This study intended to show the effectiveness of the one-stage treatment of PJI.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective observational cohort study performed from July 2014- August 2018. All patients with suspected PJI were included. Major and minor criteria developed by the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (ICPJI) was used to define infection. Laboratory tests and image exams were performed, and all patients were followed for at least 2 years.

Outcomes:

Success rate (2018 ICPJI definition to success) in treatment of PJI using one-stage revision method. Clinical and functional outcomes defined by Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Results:

Thirty-one patients were screened and 18 analyzed. 69.85 ± 9.76 years was the mean age. Mean follow-up time was 63.84 ± 18.55 months. Ten patients had acetabular defects and required bone graft reconstruction. Sixteen patients were classified as Tier 1, 1 as Tier 3D, and as 1 Tier 3E. Almost 90% of patients submitted to one-stage revision with acetabulum graft reconstruction were free of infection. The overall infection survival rate was 78.31±6.34 months. Candida albicans and sinus tract were statistically significant in univariate Cox’s analysis. The predictor of one-stage revision surgery failure that remained final Cox’s regression model was C. albicans (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.47).

Conclusion:

Treatment through one-stage revision surgery associated with 6 months of antimicrobial is a viable option with acceptable results even when bone graft reconstruction is necessary. C. albicans was a strong predictor of failure in this cohort.

Diagnosis of orthopaedic-implant-associated infections caused by slow-growing Gram-positive anaerobic bacteria - a clinical perspective

Slow-growing Gram-positive anaerobic bacteria (SGAB) such as Cutibacterium acnes are increasingly recognized as causative agents of implant-associated infections (IAIs) in orthopaedic surgeries. SGAB IAIs are difficult to diagnose because of their non-specific clinical and laboratory findings as well as the fastidious growth conditions required by these bacteria. A high degree of clinical suspicion and awareness of the various available diagnostic methods is therefore important. This review gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding SGAB IAI, providing details about clinical features and available diagnostic methodologies. In recent years, new methods for the diagnosis of IAI were developed, but there is limited knowledge about their usefulness in SGAB IAI. Further studies are required to determine the ideal diagnostic methodology to identify these infections so that they are not overlooked and mistakenly classified as aseptic failure.

What is the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotics following single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection? A systematic review

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 1 of the most challenging potential complications following total joint arthroplasty. Several surgical treatment strategies have been proposed for management of this diagnosis. The single-stage approach has been gaining popularity in contemporary literature. 1 fundamental aspect in the management of hip PJI is the administration of antibiotics, usually intravenously immediately after surgery, followed by a period of oral antibiotics. The optimal duration of the period of antibiotic therapy is undecided. The aim of this paper is to examine the trend in intravenous antibiotic use over the last 18 years and examine the influence this has had on the results of single-stage revision over that time period.

One-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty - a randomized multicenter clinical trial study protocol

Background

A two-stage prosthesis exchange procedure has been the gold standard in surgical treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty so far. This includes 2 surgeries/hospitalizations and an interim period of 2–3 months between surgeries with impaired health, functional status and quality of life of the patients. A one-stage exchange procedure holds many obvious advantages compared to the two-stage approach, but outcomes of a one-stage versus two-stage procedures have never been investigated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study is primarily to investigate time-adjusted differences in functional status of patients after one-stage versus two-stage revision. Secondary, to report time-adjusted differences in quality of life, complications (including re-revisions due to infection) and mortality.

Methods

This study is a pragmatic, multi-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Seven Danish hospitals are currently participating in the study, but additional hospitals can enter the study if adhering to protocol. Ninety-six patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 10 years. The patients who are not able to participate in the randomized trial are followed in a parallel cohort study.

PROM’s

Oxford Knee Score and EQ5D + EQ5D VAS questionnaires are completed preoperatively and sent out to the study participants at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively. In addition a tailor made cost questionnaire on the non-treating hospital resource use, community health and social service use, travel costs, time off work and informal care are sent out.

Discussion

If one of the two treatment alternatives is found superior in both domains of quality of life (both knee-specific and generic) and health economics, that treatment should be promoted. Other outcomes will open informed discussions about treatment strategies for periprosthetic knee infections.

Trial registration

The randomized trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03435679, initial release date January 31, 2018 and the cohort study is registered with ID NCT04427943, submitted January 8, 2020 and posted June 11, 2020.

Is Preoperative Identification of the Infecting Organism Essential Before Single-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection?

BACKGROUND

It is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism.

METHODS

We identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77).

RESULTS

The reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases.

CONCLUSION

The rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.

One-stage revision is as effective as two-stage revision for chronic culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI.

METHODS

A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies.

RESULTS

The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496).

CONCLUSION

In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515-521.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

[Periprosthetic joint infections : Latest developments, strategies and treatment algorithms]

BACKGROUND

Due to their multidimensional consequences, periprosthetic joint infections are a serious complication in arthroplasty. There are disagreements in the literature regarding their classification. At the same time, a consequence for the practical procedure cannot always be derived.

THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES

In addition to debridement with antibiotics and implant retention, there are options for a one or two-stage change in the therapeutic procedure. Although the preservation of implants is only possible in the case of acute infections with a short duration of symptoms, prosthesis changes are indicated with a longer symptom duration. For both procedures, there are interinstitutional deviating indication criteria, weighing pros and cons. Both have specific problems, such as, in particular, the duration of the antibiotics course, the question of anchoring the prosthesis and, in the case of a two-stage procedure, the shape of the spacer.

Single vs 2-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, accounting for a projected 10,000 revision surgeries per year by 2030. Chronic PJI is complicated by the presence of bacterial biofilm, requiring removal of components, thorough debridement, and administration of antibiotics for effective eradication. Chronic PJI is currently managed with single-stage or 2-stage revision surgery. To date, there are no randomized, prospective studies available evaluating eradication rates and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques. In this review, both treatment options are described with the most current literature to guide effective surgical decision-making that is cost-effective while decreasing patient morbidity.

Periprosthetic hip infection treated with two-stage stage-one Select Spacer- complication rate and restoration of anatomy

Two-stage revision with 'StageOne™ Select Hip Cement Spacer' is used as treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infection. The aim is to evaluate complications and restoration the joint with the StageOne Select Spacer. From 2013 to 2018 twenty-nine StageOne Select Spacers was inserted. Data was obtained through medical records and radiographs. 3.5% dislocated the spacer, 6.9% sustained a femoral fracture, 6.9% got reinfected and 6.9% failed to control the infection. Leg length discrepancy was 1.5 mm (-4,25-5.25) and offset discrepancy was 4 mm (-0.5-9). The spacer shows promising results with a low reinfection and dislocation rate and allowance of restoration of the joint.

Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review

Introduction

The digitalization of medicine has led to a considerable growth of heterogeneous health datasets, which could improve healthcare research if integrated into the clinical life cycle. This process requires, amongst other things, the harmonization of these datasets, which is a prerequisite to improve their quality, re-usability and interoperability. However, there is a wide range of factors that either hinder or favor the harmonized collection, sharing and linkage of health data.

Objective

This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to health data harmonization—including data sharing and linkage—by a comparative analysis of studies from Denmark and Switzerland.

Methods

Publications from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and CINAHL involving cross-institutional or cross-border collection, sharing or linkage of health data from Denmark or Switzerland were searched to identify the reported barriers and facilitators to data harmonization.

Results

Of the 345 projects included, 240 were single-country and 105 were multinational studies. Regarding national projects, a Swiss study reported on average more barriers and facilitators than a Danish study. Barriers and facilitators of a technical nature were most frequently reported.

Conclusion

This systematic review gathered evidence from Denmark and Switzerland on barriers and facilitators concerning data harmonization, sharing and linkage. Barriers and facilitators were strictly interrelated with the national context where projects were carried out. Structural changes, such as legislation implemented at the national level, were mirrored in the projects. This underlines the impact of national strategies in the field of health data. Our findings also suggest that more openness and clarity in the reporting of both barriers and facilitators to data harmonization constitute a key element to promote the successful management of new projects using health data and the implementation of proper policies in this field. Our study findings are thus meaningful beyond these two countries.

Improved Patient-Reported Quality of Life and Hip Function After Cementless 1-Stage Revision of Chronic Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported hip function following treatment for a chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection. The purpose of this study is to evaluate changes in HRQoL and patient-reported hip function 2 years following a cementless 1-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection.

METHODS

Patients (n = 52) enrolled in a previously published clinical study on cementless 1-stage revision in chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection prospectively answered the EuroQol-5D, Short-Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), and Oxford Hip Score preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up. Results were compared to age-matched and gender-matched population norm.

RESULTS

A significant improvement in HRQoL and patient-reported hip function appeared in the first 3 months after surgery and reached a plateau after 6 months. The patients statistically reached age-matched and gender-matched population norm after 3 to 12 months follow-up on most items, except for Physical Functioning and Social Functioning on the SF-36. The largest effect sizes were found for Oxford Hip Score at 1.8 and for Role Limitation, Physical and Bodily Pain on the SF-36 at 1.5 and 1.6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with a cementless 1-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection experienced a marked increase in HRQoL and patient-reported hip function, and matched population norms on many parameters.

Ten-Year Results Following One-Stage Septic Hip Exchange in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Although 2-stage revision is still considered the gold standard for surgical management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), 1-stage revision has been reported to be as effective. Long-term reports for 1-stage revision in hip PJIs are lacking.

METHODS

We reviewed our 10-11 years of results of 85 patients who underwent 1-stage exchange of the hip with an antibiotic-loaded bone cemented prosthesis due to PJI to determine the following: (1) What is the infection-free survival? (2) What is the overall survival? and (3) What are the long-term clinical outcomes? All 1-stage revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for infection between January 2006 and December 2007, with a minimum 10-year follow-up (range 10-11), were included in this retrospective cohort. Patients from another country or patients who were unable to participate were excluded. Eighty-five patients with a hip PJI were available at the last follow-up. Thirty-seven patients died during the 10-year study. Harris Hip Scores were recorded before the surgery and at last follow-up. Failures are reported as infection-related or aseptic.

RESULTS

The 10-year infection-free survival was 94% and the surgery-free survival was 75.9%. The Harris Hip Scores improved from 43 (range 3-91) to 75 (range 10-91) (P < .001). The main indication for re-revision after 1-stage exchange was instability (10/20 patients).

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange of the hip for PJI is a reliable treatment option with high rate of infection control and long-lasting favorable outcomes.

Single-stage treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty with cementless reconstruction: results in 126 patients with broad inclusion criteria

AIMS

Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (sd 12.7; 20 to 79).

RESULTS

Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment.

CONCLUSION

Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396-402.

Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection

Aims

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI.

Material and Methods

A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions.

Results

The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions.

Conclusion

We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus.