DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention), one-stage and two-stage revision surgery are the most common management strategies for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) management. Our knowledge concerning their efficacy is based on short to medium-term low-quality studies. Most studies report infection recurrence rates or infection-free time intervals. However, long-term survival rates of the infection-free joints, functional and quality of life outcome data are of paramount importance. DAIR, one-stage and two-stage revision strategies are not unique surgical techniques, presenting several variables. Infection control rates for the above strategies vary from 75% to 90%, but comparisons are difficult because different indications and patient selection criteria are used in each strategy. Recent outcome data show that DAIR and one-stage revision in selected patients (based on host, bacteriological, soft tissue and type of infection criteria) may present improved functional and quality of life outcomes and reduced costs for health systems as compared to those of two-stage revision. It is expected that health system administrators and providers will apply pressure on surgeons and departments towards the wider use of DAIR and one-stage revision strategies. It is the orthopaedic surgeon’s responsibility to conduct quality studies in order to fully clarify the indications and outcomes of the different revision strategies. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:727-734. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210008

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the long‐term outcomes of medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) as a treatment option for advanced medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) Kellgren–Lawrence (K‐L) III and IV.Methods: Patients with severe medial compartment arthritis, who underwent MOWHTO with locking plate between 2003 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. A locking plate for the osteotomy was utilized. Preoperative and postoperative patients’ evaluation was performed using the International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Short Form‐12 Score (SF‐12). Standardized standing whole‐limb X‐rays were taken to evaluate the mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA) and proximal medial tibial angle (PMTA), and the severity of OA.Results: A total of 32 patients, 35 knees (27 males, five females) of which 21 were classified as K‐L Grade III and 14 as K‐L Grade IV, and mean age 47.1 ± 9.17 years old, who were followed for 13.6 years (range 7–20 years), were included in the study. During the follow‐up period, three knees required conversion to total knee replacement (91.5% survival rate). All clinical outcome scores (KOOS, OKS, IKDC and SF‐12) showed a significant improvement compared to preoperative status (p < 0.05). Preoperative mTFA and PMTA were significantly corrected immediately after surgery and retained this improvement at the last follow‐up.Conclusion: MOWHTO with a locking plate is an effective method to treat severe medial compartments. Clinical and radiological results are satisfactory and the survival rate is 91.5%, at a mean follow‐up of 13.6 years after the procedure.Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Purpose: The aim of the ESSKA 2022 consensus Part III was to develop patient‐focused, contemporary, evidence‐based, guidelines on the indications for revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery (ACLRev).Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to provide recommendations on the appropriateness of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment in different clinical scenarios based on current scientific evidence in conjunction with expert opinion. A core panel defined the clinical scenarios with a moderator and then guided a panel of 17 voting experts through the RAM tasks. Through a two‐step voting process, the panel established a consensus as to the appropriateness of ACLRev for each scenario based on a nine‐point Likert scale (in which a score in the range 1–3 was considered ‘inappropriate’, 4–6 ‘uncertain’, and 7–9 ‘appropriate’).Results: The criteria used to define the scenarios were: age (18–35 years vs 36–50 years vs 51–60 years), sports activity and expectation (Tegner 0–3 vs 4–6 vs 7–10), instability symptoms (yes vs no), meniscus status (functional vs repairable vs non‐functional meniscus), and osteoarthritis (OA) (Kellgren–Lawrence [KL] grade 0–I–II vs grade III). Based on these variables, a set of 108 clinical scenarios was developed. ACLRev was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 12% (meaning conservative treatment is indicated), and uncertain in 30%. Experts considered ACLRev appropriate for patients with instability symptoms, aged ≤ 50 years, regardless of sports activity level, meniscus status, and OA grade. Results were much more controversial in patients without instability symptoms, while higher inappropriateness was related to scenarios with older age (51–60 years), low sporting expectation, non‐functional meniscus, and knee OA (KL III).Conclusion: This expert consensus establishes guidelines as to the appropriateness of ACLRev based on defined criteria and provides a useful reference for clinical practice in determining treatment indications.Level of evidence: II.

Infection following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be one of the most debilitating complications following ACL reconstruction. Its reported incidence is around 1%. Utilization of vancomycin for presoaking the graft is considered an established method for infection prevention. The role of other agents, such as gentamycin needs further investigation. Staphylococci are the predominant causative pathogens, while particular attention should be paid to fungal infections due to their long-standing, occult process. Recent data demonstrate that hamstrings autograft may be at an elevated risk of being contaminated leading to subsequent septic arthritis. Diagnosis is set by clinical and laboratory findings and is usually confirmed by intraoperative cultures. Treatment varies, mainly depending on the intraoperative assessment. Satisfactory outcomes have been reported with both graft retaining and removal, and the decision is made upon the arthroscopic appearance of the graft and the characteristics of the infection. Of note, early management seems to lead to superior results, while persistent infection should be managed with graft removal in an attempt to protect the articular cartilage and the knee function.

This is a retrospective cohort study of type C distal humeral fractures (AO classification system) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of current operative treatment options. Thirty-seven patients with type C distal humeral fractures, treated operatively from January 2002 to September 2016, were retrospectively studied. Thirty-two were eligible for inclusion. Patients were treated by open reduction using the posterior approach, olecranon osteotomy and parallel-plate two-column internal fixation. Patients were evaluated for fracture healing, functional outcomes and complications (infection, ulnar neuropathy, heterotopic ossification and need for implant removal). Restoration of the normal anatomy was defined by measuring carrying angle, posterior angulation and intercondylar distance of distal humerus. The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years [range 2–15.5 years, standard deviation (SD) = 3.96]. Mean time to fracture union was 8 weeks for 29 patients (90.6%) (range, 6–10 weeks). In nine cases, there was malunion of varied importance (28.1%). There was one case with postoperative ulnar neuropathy and one case with deep infection. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were 20 (range 0–49) and 83.3 (range 25–100), respectively. In complex distal humerus fractures, the posterior approach with olecranon osteotomy and parallel plating of two columns, after anatomic reconstruction of the articular segment, is a prerequisite for successful elbow function. Athanaselis ED, Komnos G, Deligeorgis D, et al. Double Plating in Type C Distal Humerus Fractures: Current Treatment Options and Factors that Affect the Outcome. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(1):7–13.