One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies.

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

Osteonecrosis is not a predictor of poor outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review

The primary goals of this critical literature review were to determine whether revision rates of primary total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis differ based on the underlying associated risk factors and diagnoses, whether the outcomes of this procedure have improved over the past two decades, and to compare outcomes based on study level of evidence. A systematic literature review yielded 67 reports representing 3,277 hips in 2,593 patients who had a total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Stratification of outcomes by associated risk factors or diagnoses revealed significantly lower revision rates in patients with idiopathic disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and after heart transplant, and significantly higher rates in patients with sickle cell disease, Gaucher disease, or after renal failure and/or transplant. There was a significant decrease in revision rates between patients operated upon before 1990 versus those in 1990 or later, with rates of 17% and 3%, respectively. The results for arthroplasties performed in 1990 or later were similar to those for all hips in publicly reported national joint registries. Certain risk factors were associated with higher revision rates in patients with osteonecrosis who were treated by total hip arthroplasty. However, most patients (82%) do not have these associated negative risk factors. Overall, this critical literature review provides evidence that osteonecrosis itself, or when associated with the most common risk factors and/or diagnoses, is not associated with poor outcomes in total hip arthroplasty