{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045454545454545456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01871657754010695, 'mean_word_length': 5.363945578231292, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Utilisation of calcium sulphate beads in one-stage aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty

Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects many revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients, contributing to a concomitant rise in revision costs. Means of decreasing the risk of PJI include the use of antibiotic adjuncts, such as calcium sulphate beads (CSBs). Mixed with antibiotics, the potential benefits of CSBs include dissolvability and antibiotic drug elution. However, information comparing them in aseptic revision is scarce. Therefore, this study investigated CSB utilisation for infection prevention in aseptic revision THA. Specifically, we compared (1) infection rates; (2) lengths of stay; (3) subsequent infection procedures; and (4) final surgical outcome in 1-stage aseptic revision THA patients who did received CSBs to 1-stage aseptic revision THA patients who did not. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who underwent an aseptic revision THA between January 2013 and December 2017. Patients who received CSBs (n = 48) were compared to non-CSB patients (n = 58) on the following outcomes: postoperative infections, lengths of stay (LOS), subsequent irrigation and debridements (I+Ds), and final surgical outcome, classified as successful THA reimplantation, retained antibiotic spacer, or Girdlestone procedure. Chi-square and t-testing were used to analyse the variables. Results: There was no significant differences found between CSB patients and non-CSB patients in postoperative infections (p = 0.082), LOS (p = 0.179), I+Ds (p = 0.068), and final surgical outcome (p = 0.211). Conclusion: This study did not find any statistical difference between CSBs and standard of care in infection rates and surgical outcomes. The advantage of these beads for 1-stage aseptic revisions is questionable.