Hip Reconstruction In Situ with Screws and Cement (HiRISC) construct to treat large acetabular bone defects.

Aims: Large bone defects resulting from osteolysis, fractures, osteomyelitis, or metastases pose significant challenges in acetabular reconstruction for total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the survival and radiological outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction technique in patients at high risk of reconstruction failure (i.e. periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), poor bone stock, immunosuppressed patients), referred to as Hip Reconstruction In Situ with Screws and Cement (HiRISC). This involves a polyethylene liner embedded in cement-filled bone defects reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 59 consecutive acetabular reconstructions was performed by four surgeons in a single institution from 18 October 2018 to 5 January 2023. Cases were classified based on the Paprosky classification, excluding type 1 cases (n = 26) and including types 2 or 3 for analysis (n = 33). Radiological loosening was evaluated by an orthopaedic surgeon who was not the operating surgeon, by comparing the immediate postoperative radiographs with the ones at latest follow-up. Mean follow-up was 557 days (SD 441; 31 to 1,707). Results: Out of the 33 cases analyzed, six (18.2%) constructs required revision, with four revisions due to uncontrolled infection, one for dislocation, and one for aseptic loosening. Among the 27 non-revised constructs, only one showed wider radiolucencies compared to immediate postoperative radiographs, indicating potential loosening. Patients who underwent revision (n = 6) were significantly younger and had a higher BMI compared to those with non-revised constructs (p = 0.016 and p = 0.026, respectively). Sex, race, ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infection status (patients with postoperative PJI diagnosis (septic) vs patients without such diagnosis (aseptic)), and mean follow-up did not significantly differ between revised and non-revised groups. Conclusion: The HiRISC technique may serve as a feasible short-term (about one to two years) alternative in patients with large acetabular defects, particularly in cases of PJI. Longer follow-up is necessary to establish the long-term survival of this technique.

What Is the True Impact of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis on Mortality?

BACKGROUND: Mortality is a quality indicator that may affect expenditures. Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are, on average, more expensive and exhibit higher morbidity than aseptic revisions, although reimbursement is similar. Therefore, we sought to determine (1) impact on mortality rates of revision total hip and/or knee arthroplasty performed for PJI diagnosis (septic) versus aseptic revisions, at any point in time, and (2) mortality predictors among PJI patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 978 consecutive patients who underwent revision at a single institution (January 2015 to November 2020). All revisions were evaluated, and it was determined whether patients had a revision for PJI at any point in time or not. Two groups were compared: (1) patients with septic revision(s) (n = 350) and (2) patients who only underwent aseptic revision(s) (n = 628). Demographics and mortality status at latest follow-up (mean 3 years, range: 0 to 18 years, from first revision ever) were assessed. Mortality status was also separately assessed among patients who exclusively had hip revision(s), or solely knee revision(s), or both. Multivariate regression analysis (Cox) was used to determine whether PJI diagnosis was an independent mortality predictor. Among PJI patients, potential mortality predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 65 patients died (6.6%). The septic cohort had significantly more men and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class-IV patients. Mortality rates were 10.9% and 4.3% (P < .0001) for septic and aseptic revision groups, respectively. After controlling for sex, ASA, and number of revisions, PJI diagnosis was a significant mortality predictor (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5 to 4.7, P = .001). Among PJI patients, age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.08, P = .009) and ASA (HR: 4.02, 95% CI: 1.67 to 9.67, P = .002) were independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Having a revision due to PJI diagnosis was associated with 2.5 times increased mortality. Therefore, more accurate coding capturing the complexity and morbidity of revisions for PJI diagnosis is needed.