Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with ceramic bone graft substitute: high survivorship in 43 patients with a mean follow-up period of 4 years.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Loss of bone stock remains a challenge in revision hip surgery. Grafting with allograft is well established, but there are problems with availability, cost, infection, antigenicity, reproducibility, and stability of the created construct. BoneSave is a biphasic porous ceramic consisting of sintered 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite. In vitro and in vivo studies, including its use mixed with allograft, have shown good results in impaction grafting. This is the first reported series of its use alone in impaction grafting of the acetabulum. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a cohort of 43 consecutive patients undergoing impaction grafting of contained acetabular defects by multiple surgeons at a single centre. All patients received uncemented acetabular components. They were followed up radiographically, together with self-reported satisfaction scale (SAPS), Oxford hip score (OHS), and Short-Form 12 (SF12) health survey. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision of the acetabular component, revision of any part of the construct, and reoperation as endpoints. RESULTS: The fate of all cases was known. Mean follow-up was 4 years. 5 patients died during follow-up, with their constructs in situ. The survivorship of the acetabular component was 98% (95% CI: 85-100) at 7 years. 1 acetabular component was revised for infection and there was 1 radiographic acetabular failure. The median OHS was 36 (6-48), the median SF12 PCS was 36 (14-57), the median SAPS was 75 (0-100), and the median SF12 MCS was 50 (23-64). The graft material had incorporated in all 3 zones of the acetabulum in 33 out of 37 cases with complete radiographic follow-up. INTERPRETATION: Medium-term results show that BoneSave alone is a reliable material for impaction grafting of contained defects in the acetabulum at revision surgery.

Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with ceramic bone graft substitute mixed with femoral head allograft: high survivorship in 43 patients with a median follow-up of 7 years: a follow-up report.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Restoration of bone stock at revision hip surgery remains a challenge. Alternative graft materials with suitable mechanical properties for impaction grafting have been sought due to issues with infection, antigenicity, cost, and availability of allograft. We have previously presented good short-term results of the use of BoneSave, a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute, consisting of sintered 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite, in a 50:50 mix with femoral head allograft. We now present the medium-term results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a cohort of 43 consecutive patients undergoing impaction grafting of contained acetabular defects by multiple surgeons at a single center. 34 patients received uncemented acetabular components and 9 received cemented components. Patients were followed up radiographically and with the self-reported satisfaction scale (SAPS), Oxford hip score (OHS), and the Short-Form 12 (SF12) health survey. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision of the acetabular component, revision of any part of the construct, and reoperation as endpoints. RESULTS: The fate of all cases was known. Median follow-up of the surviving patients was 80 (69-106) months. 15 patients died during the follow-up period, 14 with their construct in situ. The survivorship of the grafted acetabulum and acetabular component was 94% (95% CI: 99-78) at 7 years. 1 patient had been revised for aseptic loosening of the acetabulum and 1 for deep infection. The mean OHS was 31 (SD 12), the mean SF12 physical-component score (PCS) was 38 (SD 13), the median SAPS was 83 (0-100), and the median SF12 mental-component score (MCS) was 55 (23-65). The graft material became incorporated in all 3 zones of the acetabulum in 23 out of 24 cases that had complete radiographic follow-up. INTERPRETATION: These medium-term results show that BoneSave is a reliable material for impaction grafting of the acetabulum when used in conjunction with femoral head allograft.

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales.

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

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.

2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections.

Biofilm-associated implant-related bone and joint infections are clinically important due to the extensive morbidity, cost of care and socioeconomic burden that they cause. Research in the field of biofilms has expanded in the past two decades, however, there is still an immense knowledge gap related to many clinical challenges of these biofilm-associated infections. This subject was assigned to the Biofilm Workgroup during the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection held in Philadelphia USA (ICM 2018) (https://icmphilly.com). The main objective of the Biofilm Workgroup was to prepare a consensus document based on a review of the literature, prepared responses, discussion, and vote on thirteen biofilm related questions. The Workgroup commenced discussing and refining responses prepared before the meeting on day one using Delphi methodology, followed by a tally of responses using an anonymized voting system on the second day of ICM 2018. The Working group derived consensus on information about biofilms deemed relevant to clinical practice, pertaining to: (1) surface modifications to prevent/inhibit biofilm formation; (2) therapies to prevent and treat biofilm infections; (3) polymicrobial biofilms; (4) diagnostics to detect active and dormant biofilm in patients; (5) methods to establish minimal biofilm eradication concentration for biofilm bacteria; and (6) novel anti-infectives that are effective against biofilm bacteria. It was also noted that biomedical research funding agencies and the pharmaceutical industry should recognize these areas as priorities. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res.