Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. METHODS: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. RESULTS: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I(2) = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique

Portable, digital telethermocamera for monitoring total hip and knee replacement surgical site healing and the occurrence of septic complications.

n/

Fast-resorbable antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating to reduce post-surgical infection after internal osteosynthesis : a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Infection is one of the main reasons for failure of orthopedic implants. Antibacterial coatings may prevent bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation, according to various preclinical studies. The aim of the present study is to report the first clinical trial on an antibiotic-loaded fast-resorbable hydrogel coating (Defensive Antibacterial Coating, DAC\uae) to prevent surgical site infection, in patients undergoing internal osteosynthesis for closed fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled prospective study, a total of 256 patients in five European orthopedic centers who were scheduled to receive osteosynthesis for a closed fracture, were randomly assigned to receive antibiotic-loaded DAC or to a control group (without coating). Pre- and postoperative assessment of laboratory tests, wound healing, clinical scores and X-rays were performed at fixed time intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 253 patients were available with a mean follow-up of 18.1 \ub1 4.5 months (range 12-30). On average, wound healing, clinical scores, laboratory tests and radiographic findings did not show any significant difference between the two groups. Six surgical site infections (4.6%) were observed in the control group compared to none in the treated group (P < 0.03). No local or systemic side-effects related to the DAC hydrogel product were observed and no detectable interference with bone healing was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a fast-resorbable antibiotic-loaded hydrogel implant coating provides a reduced rate of post-surgical site infections after internal osteosynthesis for closed fractures, without any detectable adverse event or side-effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

Background: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. Methods: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. Results: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I2 = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusion: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique

One-stage exchange with antibacterial hydrogel coated implants provides similar results to two-stage revision, without the coating, for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection

Purpose: Aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that a one-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, provides similar infection recurrence rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods: In this two-center case\u2013control, study, 22 patients, treated with a one-stage procedure, using implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel [defensive antibacterial coating (DAC)], were compared with 22 retrospective matched controls, treated with a two-stage revision procedure, without the coating. Results: At a mean follow-up of 29.3 \ub1 5.0 months, two patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to three patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. Clinical scores were similar between groups, while average hospital stay and antibiotic treatment duration were significantly reduced after one-stage, compared to two-stage (18.9 \ub1 2.9 versus 35.8 \ub1 3.4 and 23.5 \ub1 3.3 versus 53.7 \ub1 5.6&nbsp;days, respectively). Conclusions: Although in a relatively limited series of patients, our data shows similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with DAC-coated implants, compared to two-stage revision without coating, with reduced overall hospitalization time and antibiotic treatment duration. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections. Level of evidence: III

Portable, digital telethermocamera for monitoring total hip and knee replacement surgical site healing and the occurrence of septic complications

Abstract With more than one million implants performed each year in Europe, joint replacement is one of the most successful surgical intervention. However, septic complications remain one of the first reasons for implant failure, often posing difficult diagnostic dilemmas. We present the normal reference thermographic values of wound healing after total knee and hip replacements and report on the results of a prospective study focused on the diagnostic value of telethermography to differentiate septic versus aseptic painful knee prosthesis. Portable, digital telethermocameras are reliable, easy-to-use and relatively low-cost and their large scale use in the routine clinical setting should be considered