PurposeWe investigated the hypothesis that many total hip arthroplasty revisions that are classified as aseptic are in fact low-grade infections missed with routine diagnostics.MethodsIn 7 Dutch hospitals, 176 consecutive patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening of their total hip arthroplasty were enrolled. During surgery, between 14 and 20 tissue samples were obtained for culture, pathology, and broad-range 16S rRNA PCR with reverse line blot hybridization. Patients were classified as either not being infected, suspected of having infection, or infected according to strict, predefined criteria. Each patient had a follow-up visit after 1 year.Results7 patients were classified as infected, 4 of whom were not identified by routine culture. 15 additional patients were suspected of having infection. 20 of these 22 patients received a cemented prosthesis, fixated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. All 22 patients received prophylactic systemic antibiotics. 7 of them reported complaints one year after surgery, but only one showed signs of early loosening. However, additional surgery was not performed in any of the patients.InterpretationAlthough the proportions were not as high as previously reported in the literature, between 4% and 13% of patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening were infected. However, as thorough debridement was performed during surgery and prophylactic antibiotics were used, the diagnosis of infection did not have any obvious clinical consequences, as most patients performed well at the 1-year follow-up. Whether this observation has implications for long-term implant survival remains to be seen.

Following revision of TKA and THA for aseptic diagnoses, around 10% of cases were found to have positive cultures. In the knee, such cases had inferior infection-free survival at two years compared with those with negative cultures; there was no difference between the groups following THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1482-9.

We recommend that an orthopaedic surgeon should choose an established cemented or cementless socket for hip replacement based on patient characteristics, knowledge, experience and preference.

Background The acetabular component has remained the weakest link in hip arthroplasty regarding achievement of long-term survival. Primary fixation is a prerequisite for long-term performance. For this reason, we investigated the stability of a unique cementless titanium-coated elastic monoblock socket and the influence of supplementary screw fixation.Patient and methods During 2006–2008, we performed a randomized controlled trial on 37 patients (mean age 63 years (SD 7), 22 females) in whom we implanted a cementless press-fit socket. The socket was implanted with additional screw fixation (group A, n = 19) and without additional screw fixation (group B, n = 18). Using radiostereometric analysis with a 2-year follow-up, we determined the stability of the socket. Clinically relevant migration was defined as > 1 mm translation and > 2º rotation. Clinical scores were determined.Results The sockets without screw fixation showed a statistically significantly higher proximal translation compared to the socket with additional screw fixation. However, this higher migration was below the clinically relevant threshold. The numbers of migratory sockets were not significantly different between groups. After the 2-year follow-up, there were no clinically relevant differences between groups A and B regarding the clinical scores. 1 patient dropped out of the study. In the others, no sockets were revised.Interpretation We found that additional screw fixation is not necessary to achieve stability of the cementless press-fit elastic RM socket. We saw no postoperative benefit or clinical effect of additional screw fixation.

The survival of acetabular components depends on several factors: wear, osteolysis and septic or aseptic loosening. Osteolysis seems to be the main cause for concern in cementless arthroplasties. Acetabular osteolysis results from particle debris and segmental unloading of acetabular bone by rigid sockets. We investigated a cementless elastic monoblock socket with regard to acetabular osteolysis and aseptic loosening in a cohort of young patients. We evaluated 158 hip arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of ten years (ten to 18) and a mean age of 42 years (18–50). The overall revision rate at 14 years was 80% with a 98% survival rate for aseptic loosening. The mean polyethylene wear rate was 0.11 mm/year. Progressive acetabular osteolysis was seen in 3% of patients evaluated. In conclusion, we found low pelvic osteolysis rates, acceptable overall wear rates, satisfactory overall survival and excellent survival rates for aseptic loosening of a cementless elastic monoblock socket in patients younger than 50 years. Ongoing tribology developments and knowledge about acetabular bone adaptations behind acetabular implants will further lower wear and osteolysis rates and optimise survival rates of cementless sockets.

Aims The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups. Results The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively). Conclusion Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859–866.

No abstract

Background Accurate quantification of bone loss facilitates preoperative planning and standardization for research purposes in patients who undergo revision TKA. The most commonly used classification to rate bone defects in this setting, the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute classification, does not quantify diaphyseal bone loss and reliability has not been well studied. Questions/purposes We developed a new classification scheme to rate bone defects in patients undergoing revision TKA and tested (1) the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of this classification for revision TKA based on preoperative radiographs, and (2) whether additional CT images might improve interobserver reliability. Methods This was a preregistered observational study. Interobserver reliability was analyzed using preoperative radiographs of 61 patients who underwent (repeat) revision TKA, and their bone defects were rated by five experienced orthopaedic surgeons. For intraobserver reliability, ratings were repeated at least 2 weeks after the first rating (Timepoints 1 and 2). Directly after the radiographic assessments of Timepoint 2, the observers were provided with CT images of each patient and asked to rate the bone defects for a third time (Timepoint 3), to assess the additional value of CT. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were tested using Gwet’s agreement coefficient 2, which is a measure of agreement between observers in categorical data. Substantial agreement was defined as coefficients between 0.61 to 0.8 and almost perfect agreement as > 0.8. Results The intraobserver reliability varied between 0.55 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.71) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) in the epiphysis, between 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 1) in the metaphysis, and between 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1) in the diaphysis. The interobserver reliability varied between 0.48 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.57) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.56) in the epiphysis and between 0.81 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.93) in the metaphysis, and was 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99) in the diaphysis at Timepoint 1. The interobserver reliability at Timepoint 2 was similar to that of Timepoint 1. The addition of CT images did not improve reliability (Timepoint 3). Conclusions The bone defect classification was less reliable in the epiphyseal area compared with the metaphysis and diaphysis. This finding may be explained by prosthetic components obscuring this region or the more severe bone defects in this region. The addition of CT scans did not improve reliability. Further testing of reliability with observers from other institutions is necessary, as well as validity testing, by testing the classification in relation to intraoperative findings. Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic study.