Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM):pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.RD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted.Unknow

Periprosthetic fractures around the knee:current concepts and advances in management

Knee replacement is an effective treatment for pain and functional impairment secondary to degenerative joint conditions. The number of knee replacements performed continues to rise. Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasties are a relatively rare complication but are complex injuries that require the treating surgeon to be familiar with and proficient at arthroplasty and trauma reconstructive techniques. An increase in life expectancy and in the functional demands of elderly patients may lead to an increased incidence of periprosthetic fractures. Supracondylar fractures of the femur are the most common type and this review will focus on the incidence, risk factors, classification, investigation, and treatment options for periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasties

Evaluating the effect of measles and rubella mass vaccination campaigns on seroprevalence in India: a before-and-after cross-sectional household serosurvey in four districts, 2018-2020

BACKGROUND: India did phased measles-rubella supplementary immunisation activities (MR-SIAs; ie, mass-immunisation campaigns) targeting children aged 9 months to less than 15 years. We estimated measles-rubella seroprevalence before and after the MR-SIAs to quantify the effect on population immunity and identify remaining immunity gaps. METHODS: Between March 9, 2018 and March 19, 2020 we did community-based, cross-sectional serosurveys in four districts in India before and after MR-SIAs. 30 villages or wards were selected within each district, and one census enumeration block from each was selected as the survey cluster. Households were enumerated and 13 children in the younger age group (9 months to <5 years) and 13 children in the older ager group (5 to <15 years) were randomly selected by use of computer-generated random numbers. Serum samples were tested for IgG antibodies to measles and rubella viruses by enzyme immunoassay. FINDINGS: Specimens were collected from 2570 children before the MR-SIA and from 2619 children afterwards. The weighted MR-SIA coverage ranged from 73·7% to 90·5% in younger children and from 73·6% to 93·6% in older children. Before the MR-SIA, district-level measles seroprevalence was between 80·7% and 88·5% among younger children in all districts, and between 63·4% and 84·5% among older children. After the MR-SIA, measles seroprevalence among younger children increased to more than 90% (range 91·5 to 96·0) in all districts except Kanpur Nagar, in which it remained unchanged 80·4%. Among older children, measles seroprevalence increased to more than 90·0% (range 93·7% to 96·5%) in all districts except Hoshiarpur (88·7%). A significant increase in rubella seroprevalence was observed in all districts in both age groups, with the largest effect in Dibrugarh, where rubella seroprevalence increased from 10·6% to 96·5% among younger children. INTERPRETATION: Measles-rubella seroprevalence increased substantially after the MR-SIAs but the serosurvey also identified remaining gaps in population immunity. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Indian Council of Medical Research