Validation of the European Bone & Joint Infection Society recommendations for debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection

Andrew J. Hotchen,James Richards,Ruben P. Thumbadoo,Shawn Jia Hwang Tan,Paul Foster,Sefa W. Canbilen,Bhavi Patel,Antony Palmer,Athanasios Pollalis,Irene K. Sigmund,Martin McNally
{"title":"Validation of the European Bone & Joint Infection Society recommendations for debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection","authors":"Andrew J. Hotchen,James Richards,Ruben P. Thumbadoo,Shawn Jia Hwang Tan,Paul Foster,Sefa W. Canbilen,Bhavi Patel,Antony Palmer,Athanasios Pollalis,Irene K. Sigmund,Martin McNally","doi":"10.1302/0301-620x.108b10.bjj-2026-0028.r1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims The aim of this study was to externally validate the European Bone & Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) recommendations for the use of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), examining the independent associations of the selection of patients and the operative technique with failure after DAIR. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study involving seven UK hospitals and including adults with hip or knee PJI treated with DAIR. Patients were classified by EBJIS recommendations (DAIR-indicated, risk factors, or not recommended) and operative technique (exchange of components vs no exchange). The primary endpoint was the failure of treatment as defined by the need for further surgery for infection, long-term suppressive antibiotics, or death within 90 days, amputation, or arthrodesis. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by joint and repeated, excluding long-term suppressive antibiotics from the composite endpoint. Results A total of 411 patients (165 hips; 246 knees) were analyzed: 82 (20.0%) DAIR-indicated, 103 (25.1%) with risk factors, and 226 (55.0%) not recommended. Modular components were exchanged in 213 (51.8%). Over a median 2.1 years of follow-up (IQR 0.58 to 5.5), failure occurred in 193 patients (47.0%). Compared with the DAIR-indicated group, the DAIR not recommended group had a significantly higher risk of failure (hazard ratio (HR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.35); p = 0.007), whereas the risk factor group had a similar risk (HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.15); p = 0.689). DAIR without exchange of components was strongly significantly associated with failure of treatment (HR 2.40 (95% CI 1.89 to 3.06); p < 0.001). Joint-stratified and sensitivity analyses showed a similar direction of effect. Treatment was successful in 78.8% (26/33) in the most favourable scenario (DAIR-indicated with exchange of components) compared with 28.0% (26/93) in the least favourable scenario (DAIR not recommended without exchange of components). Conclusion In this external validation, both EBJIS patient selection and operative technique were associated with the outcomes after DAIR, with lack of exchange of components showing the strongest association with failure of treatment. The EBJIS framework is pragmatic and generalizable across specialist and non-specialist centres, and can support shared decision-making and the standardization of surgery in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J  2026;108-B(10):1255–1264.","PeriodicalId":516847,"journal":{"name":"The Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"57 1","pages":"1255-1264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.108b10.bjj-2026-0028.r1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to externally validate the European Bone & Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) recommendations for the use of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), examining the independent associations of the selection of patients and the operative technique with failure after DAIR. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study involving seven UK hospitals and including adults with hip or knee PJI treated with DAIR. Patients were classified by EBJIS recommendations (DAIR-indicated, risk factors, or not recommended) and operative technique (exchange of components vs no exchange). The primary endpoint was the failure of treatment as defined by the need for further surgery for infection, long-term suppressive antibiotics, or death within 90 days, amputation, or arthrodesis. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by joint and repeated, excluding long-term suppressive antibiotics from the composite endpoint. Results A total of 411 patients (165 hips; 246 knees) were analyzed: 82 (20.0%) DAIR-indicated, 103 (25.1%) with risk factors, and 226 (55.0%) not recommended. Modular components were exchanged in 213 (51.8%). Over a median 2.1 years of follow-up (IQR 0.58 to 5.5), failure occurred in 193 patients (47.0%). Compared with the DAIR-indicated group, the DAIR not recommended group had a significantly higher risk of failure (hazard ratio (HR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.35); p = 0.007), whereas the risk factor group had a similar risk (HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.15); p = 0.689). DAIR without exchange of components was strongly significantly associated with failure of treatment (HR 2.40 (95% CI 1.89 to 3.06); p < 0.001). Joint-stratified and sensitivity analyses showed a similar direction of effect. Treatment was successful in 78.8% (26/33) in the most favourable scenario (DAIR-indicated with exchange of components) compared with 28.0% (26/93) in the least favourable scenario (DAIR not recommended without exchange of components). Conclusion In this external validation, both EBJIS patient selection and operative technique were associated with the outcomes after DAIR, with lack of exchange of components showing the strongest association with failure of treatment. The EBJIS framework is pragmatic and generalizable across specialist and non-specialist centres, and can support shared decision-making and the standardization of surgery in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J  2026;108-B(10):1255–1264.
欧洲骨关节感染学会对髋关节和膝关节假体周围关节感染的清创、抗生素和植入物保留建议的验证
目的本研究的目的是外部验证欧洲骨和关节感染学会(EBJIS)关于使用清创、抗生素和种植体保留(DAIR)治疗假体周围关节感染(PJI)的建议,检查DAIR后患者选择和手术技术与失败的独立关联。方法:这是一项多中心回顾性队列研究,涉及7家英国医院,包括接受DAIR治疗的髋关节或膝关节PJI患者。根据EBJIS推荐(dair指示、危险因素或不推荐)和手术技术(组件交换与不交换)对患者进行分类。主要终点是治疗失败,定义为需要进一步手术治疗感染,长期抑制抗生素,或90天内死亡,截肢或关节融合术。敏感性分析通过联合和重复分层,从复合终点排除长期抑制抗生素。结果共分析了411例患者(165髋,246膝),其中82例(20.0%)有dair适应症,103例(25.1%)有危险因素,226例(55.0%)不推荐。213例(51.8%)更换了模块化组件。在平均2.1年的随访中(IQR为0.58 - 5.5),193例患者(47.0%)出现治疗失败。与DAIR指示组相比,DAIR不推荐组的失败风险明显更高(风险比(HR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 ~ 2.35);p = 0.007),而危险因素组的风险相似(HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.60 ~ 2.15);P = 0.689)。未更换组件的DAIR与治疗失败密切相关(HR 2.40 (95% CI 1.89 - 3.06);P < 0.001)。关节分层分析和敏感性分析显示了相似的影响方向。在最有利的情况下(DAIR建议更换组件),治疗成功率为78.8%(26/33),而在最不利的情况下(DAIR不建议更换组件),治疗成功率为28.0%(26/93)。结论在本次外部验证中,EBJIS患者的选择和手术技术都与DAIR术后的结果相关,其中缺乏组件交换与治疗失败的相关性最强。EBJIS框架是实用的,可在专科和非专科中心推广,并可支持这些患者的共同决策和手术标准化。本文引用本文:骨关节学报;2008;38(10):1255-1264。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书