The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic shoulder infections has not been established, with a lack of randomised comparative studies. This systematic review compares the infection eradication rate and functional outcomes after single- or two-stage shoulder exchange arthroplasty, to permanent spacer implant or resection arthroplasty. Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2000 to June 2014, identified through international databases, such as EMBASE and PubMed, were reviewed. Those reporting the success rate of infection eradication after a single-stage exchange, two-stage exchange, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and sample size of 5 patients were included. Eight original articles reporting the results after resection arthroplasty (n = 83), 6 on single-stage exchange (n = 75), 13 on two-stage exchange (n = 142) and 8 papers on permanent spacer (n = 68) were included. The average infection eradication rate was 86.7 % at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months (SD 20.8) after resection arthroplasty, 94.7 % at 46.8 months (SD 17.6) after a single-stage exchange, 90.8 % at 37.9 months (SD 12.8) after two-stage exchange, and 95.6 % at 31.0 months (SD 9.8) following a permanent spacer implant. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.650). Regarding functional outcome, patients treated with single-stage exchange had statistically significant better postoperative Constant scores (mean 51, SD 13) than patients undergoing a two-stage exchange (mean 44, SD 9), resection arthroplasty (mean 32, SD 7) or a permanent spacer implant (mean 31, SD 9) (p = 0.029). However, when considering studies comparing pre- and post-operative Constant scores, the difference was not statistically significant. This systematic review failed to demonstrate a clear difference in infection eradication and functional improvement between all four treatment modalities for established periprosthetic shoulder infection. The relatively low number of patients and the methodological limitations of the studies available point out the need for well designed multi-center trials to further assess the best treatment option of peri-prosthetic shoulder infection.

Clinical and mechanical outcomes in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction vs additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction

Purpose: Meniscal injuries are increasingly common in older age groups. Age is often cited as a contraindication to undergoing meniscal repair due to concerns regarding failure rates. There has recently, however, been an increasing shift towards repair in older populations. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes of meniscal repair in patients over the age of 40. Methods: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted of PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify studies reporting failure rates of patients over 40 with meniscal injuries undergoing repair. The definition of meniscus failure was noted for each study evaluated in this systematic review. Further data surrounding clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded and evaluated, when available. Results: Thirteen studies were included in this review, encompassing a total of 316 meniscal repairs in patients over the age of 40 years. The overall failure rate was found to be 15.5% (49/316) (range 0–33.3%). There was no difference in the failure rate in those over 40 vs. under 40, and the two groups had equivalent functional outcomes. Conclusions: Age should not be considered a contra-indication for meniscal repair. Appropriately selected older patients can have acceptably low failure rates with meniscal repair and similar functional outcomes to those under the age of forty. Meniscal repairs in those over 40 achieved better functional outcomes than patients of the same age group who underwent meniscectomy.

Background: Periprosthetic Joint Infection Remains a Dreaded Complication After Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery.Treatment Options for Acute Postoperative and Acute Hematogenous Infections Include Arthroscopic or Open Debridement With Retention or Exchange of the Prostheses. This Review Article Aims to Summarize the Evidence for Management of Acute Postoperative And Acute Hematogenous Infections.Methods: A Systematic Literature Search Was Performed Using a Computer-based Search Engine Covering Medline (OvidSP), PubMed Database (U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar for Relevant Articles.Results: Common Themes Around Treatment of Acute Postoperative and Acute Hematogenous Infections Discussed in this Review Include the Timing of Intervention, Description of the Optimal Procedure and How we Perform it at our Institution, the Role of Arthroscopic Debridement, Most Commonly Isolated Micro-organisms and Prognostic Factors for Infection Control.Conclusion: Success in Treating Acute Postoperative and Acute Hematogenous Infections Depends on Early Diagnosis and Aggressive Surgical Debridement Combined With Effective Antibiotic Therapy.