Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) following hip and knee arthroplasty: results and findings of a multidisciplinary approach from a non-specialist prosthetic infection centre. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England INTRODUCTION:Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication following arthroplasty surgery. Recently a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure has gained popularity for PJI where a thorough debridement, irrigation and modular component exchange is undertaken. METHOD:We present the outcome for DAIR, data collected prospectively, in a busy orthopaedic unit but not one specialising in PJI. All patients with PJI were included without loss of data or patients from 2012 to 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. RESULTS:Four total knee replacements, 17 total hip replacements, one revision total hip replacement and three hip hemiarthroplasties are included with an average duration from onset of symptoms to the DAIR procedure of 11 days (range 1-22 days). (24%) and (32%) were the most common causative organisms, and the most common antibiotic regimens included intravenous teicoplanin and flucloxacillin. Average follow-up was 67 months (range 9-104 months). Only four patients went on to require revision surgery. An analysis of midterm patient outcome measures for 6 of the total hip replacement (THR) DAIR patients were compared with a database of 792 THRs (with a minimum two-year follow-up) carried out by the same surgeon revealed no significant difference in Oxford hip scores at one-year post-surgery (OHS DAIR 36.2 vs 39 for control group). CONCLUSION:This study includes 25 consecutive patients treated with DAIR with only one reinfection, with a mean follow-up period of 5 years. Using a strict protocol, DAIR appears to offer a successful treatment strategy for the management of early PJI. 10.1308/rcsann.2023.0076

Robotic Versus Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery. 10.7759/cureus.46681

Can a 1.5-Stage Revision be an Effective Alternative for Chronic Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of arthroplasty BACKGROUND:A 1.5-stage revision could be an alternative to a 2-stage revision for treating hip and knee chronic periprosthetic infections, guaranteeing the maintenance of joint function and infection control and preventing infection-free patients from undergoing further surgery. Our systematic review aimed to answer several questions about the indication, the infection eradication rate, and the long-term functional outcome of 1.5-stage revisions used to treat chronic periprosthetic infections of the hip and knee. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies dealing with the use of 1.5-stage and two-stage surgery for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). The Coleman Methodology Score and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) score were used to assess the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the infection eradication rate using either the 1.5-stage revision or the two-stage technique. A total of 494 patients (111 hips and 385 knees) who underwent 1.5-stage with a mean age of 69 years (range, 61 to 82) were identified in the ten included studies. RESULTS:The most common cause of reoperation was the conversion to the definitive prosthesis, followed by aseptic loosening. Infection control was reached in 84.6% of the 1.5-stage and 76.1% of the two-stage cohorts. The infection recurrence rate was higher in the two-stage cohort than the 1.5-stage group (21.8 versus 14.3%). CONCLUSION:The 1.5-stage technique represents a valid treatment option in selected patients who have chronic PJI who cannot undergo further surgeries, adding together the benefits of the one- and two-stage procedures. Furthermore, the 1.5-stage showed a better success rate in the infection resolution than the two-stage technique. 10.1016/j.arth.2024.09.024

Prevention of surgical site infection: a ten-step approach. Arthroplasty (London, England) Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery. Similarly, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), is a major cause of failure after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As the annual volume of TJA procedures is projected to rise, so will the rate of subsequent SSI and PJI. Currently, prevention has been identified as the single most important strategy for combating SSI/PJI. Hence, the present article will serve as a summary of an evidence-based ten-step approach for SSI/PJI prevention that may help orthopedic surgeons with their infection prevention strategies. 10.1186/s42836-023-00174-7

"Recommendations for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) prevention: the European Knee Associates (EKA)-International Committee American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS)-Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) survey of members". Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA PURPOSE:Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a devastating consequence of total joint arthroplasty. The European Knee Associates (EKA), the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) International Committee, and the Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) board members were interested in quantifying differences in arthroplasty surgeons' use of various PJI prevention measures to provide clinical recommendations to reduce PJI incidence. METHODS:A prospective Microsoft Forms online survey was distributed among EKA, AAHKS International Committee, and ASIA members and their affiliated arthroplasty surgeons. The survey consisted of 20 single and multiple response questions focused on PJI prevention strategies at three perioperative periods: preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. RESULTS:Three hundred and ninety-four arthroplasty surgeons from 6 different continents completed the survey. Preoperative: (A) PJI Risk Stratification: 40.6% routinely set thresholds (e.g., BMI, HgbA1C) to be met to qualify for surgery, 36.5% only review past medical history; 9.1% use machine learning to personalize PJI risk; (B) BMI limit: 36% no limit; 15.4% BMI < 35; 30.9% BMI < 40; 17.2% BMI < 45; (C) Nutritional status: 55.3% do not screen; among those who screen their patients (44.7%), albumin is the single most used marker (86.3%); (D) Hyperglycemia/Diabetes: 83.3% check this comorbidity; 88.1% use HgbA1C as single best screening test; (E) MRSA nasal colonization: 63.7% do not test; 28.9% test all patients; 7.4% test selectively. Intraoperative: (A) Antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients: 43.4% use single antibiotic for 24 h; 21.3% use double antibiotic for 24 h; 14.2% use single/double antibiotic for 7 days postoperatively; (B) Skin-cleansing: 68.7% at home (45.6% chlorhexidine sponge; 11.9% clippers); (C) Intraoperative skin disinfection: 46.9% single chlorhexidine; 25% double chlorhexidine-povidone-iodine;15.4% single povidone-iodine; (D) Tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce bleeding/SSI: 96% yes (51% double IV dose, 35.2% single IV dose, 23.6% intra-articular injection); (E) Surgical suction drain: 52% do not use drains; 19.7% use a drain < 24 h; (F) Intra-articular lavage: 64.9% use only saline; 28.1% use dilute povidone-iodine; (G) Antibiotic local delivery to prevent PJI: 82.4% use antibiotic-added cement. Postoperative: (A) Routine monitoring of PJI serologic markers: 42% only in symptomatic patients; 34.2% do not; 20.8% in all patients; (B) Serologic markers to rule in/out PJI: 95.9% CRP; 71% SEDRATE; 60.6% WBC; (C) Synovial fluid test to rule in/out PJI: 79.6% culture/sensitivity; 69.5% WBC count; 31.4% CRP. CONCLUSIONS:This survey demonstrated that notable differences still exist in the application of PJI preventive measures across different geographic areas: Optimizing the patient preoperatively and applying multimodal intraoperative strategies represent newer, clinically relevant steps in the effort to reduce the burden of PJI. More uniform guidelines still need to be produced from international scientific societies in order facilitate a more comprehensive approach to this devastating complication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:IV. 10.1007/s00167-021-06742-1