Periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.

Aims: The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods: Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as 'confirmed', 'likely', or 'unlikely' according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results: The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion: When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes.

Outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with haemophilia: A meta-analysis of comparative studies and clinical practice recommendations.

AIM: We aimed to compare the outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) in haemophilic patients compared to matched controls. METHODS: Through a literature search we identified all cohort studies comparing perioperative complications and other outcomes of THA and TKA in haemophilic patients and matched controls without haemophilia. Results of the same outcome measure assessed by two or more studies were pooled in meta-analyses; odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The risk of bias in included studies and certainty of evidence of each result were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the GRADE tool respectively. RESULTS: A total of five retrospective studies with matched controls were included; four of them were of good and one of fair quality. Based on moderate certainty evidence, compared to matched controls, patients with haemophilia had a significantly higher incidence of the following complications after a) TKA: periprosthetic joint infection [PJI; OR 1.6 CI (1.3, 1.9)], 1-year revision/re-operation [OR 1.4 CI (1.2, 1.8)] and b) THA: major and minor 90-day complications [major OR 2.2 CI (1.7, 2.9); minor OR 1.4 CI (1.1, 1.8)], venous thromboembolism [OR 3.1 CI (2.1, 4.6)]. PJI incidence in THA was not different in haemophilia compared to controls [OR 1.5 CI (.9, 2.6)]. CONCLUSION: Our results can be used by healthcare professionals counselling patients with haemophilia considering a THA or TKA as part of the informed consent process. We provide detailed clinical recommendations for the perioperative management of THA and TKA in haemophilic patients.