The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting. The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.

Level III, comparative study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Re-infection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6–20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3–38.3) for one-stage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58–5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10654-018-0377-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83). The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism. We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system.

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects approximately 1 % of patients following total hip replacement (THR) and often results in severe physical and emotional suffering. Current surgical treatment options are debridement, antibiotics and implant retention; revision THR; excision of the joint and amputation. Revision surgery can be done as either a one-stage or two-stage operation. Both types of surgery are well-established practice in the NHS and result in similar rates of re-infection, but little is known about the impact of these treatments from the patient’s perspective. The main aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine whether there is a difference in patient-reported outcome measures 18 months after randomisation for one-stage or two-stage revision surgery.Methods/DesignINFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) is an open, two-arm, multi-centre, randomised, superiority trial. We aim to randomise 148 patients with eligible PJI of the hip from approximately seven secondary care NHS orthopaedic units from across England and Wales. Patients will be randomised via a web-based system to receive either a one-stage revision or a two-stage revision THR. Blinding is not possible due to the nature of the intervention. All patients will be followed up for 18 months.The primary outcome is the WOMAC Index, which assesses hip pain, function and stiffness, collected by questionnaire at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include the following: cost-effectiveness, complications, re-infection rates, objective hip function assessment and quality of life. A nested qualitative study will explore patients’ and surgeons’ experiences, including their views about trial participation and randomisation.DiscussionINFORM is the first ever randomised trial to compare two widely accepted surgical interventions for the treatment of PJI: one-stage and two-stage revision THR. The results of the trial will benefit patients in the future as the main focus is on patient-reported outcomes: pain, function and wellbeing in the long term. Patients state that these outcomes are more important than those that are clinically derived (such as re-infection) and have been commonly used in previous non-randomised studies.Results from the INFORM trial will also benefit clinicians and NHS managers by enabling the comparison of these key interventions in terms of patients’ complication rates, health and social resource use and their overall cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN10956306 (registered on 29 January 2015); UKCRN ID 18159.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1213-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial was designed to investigate the effect of prophylactic flucloxacillin on the infection rate in clean incised hand injuries, which included trauma to skin, tendon and nerve in adults. Using strict exclusion criteria, a total of 170 patients were recruited into one of three trial groups; Group A - intravenous flucloxacillin on induction followed by an oral placebo; Group B - intravenous flucloxacillin on induction followed by an oral flucloxacillin course or Group C - oral placebo. Thirteen of the patients were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 92% available to complete the trial. Infection was diagnosed using clinical criteria. The infection rates in the three groups were Group A - 13%, Group B - 4% and Group C - 15%. Strictly, the results demonstrate no statistically significant difference in the infection rates between the groups.

No abstract

No abstract