IV.

No abstract

Very few studies within the PFF literature provide detailed implant information. Cementless implants, specifically those of single-wedge and double-wedge, have the highest PFF rates in the literature, with most investigations recommending against their use in older patients with osteoporotic bone. This review illustrates the need for registries and future PFF studies to record implant name and information for future analysis. Furthermore, future biomechanical investigations comparing modern implants are needed to clarify the precise contribution of implant design to PFF risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):50-9.

Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of arthroplasty surgery that can lead to debilitating morbidity for the patient and significant expense for the healthcare system. With the continual rise of arthroplasty cases worldwide every year, the revision load for infection is becoming a greater financial burden on healthcare budgets. Prevention of infection has to be the key to reducing this burden. For treatment, it is critical for us to collect quality data that can guide future management strategies to minimise healthcare costs and morbidity / mortality for patients. There has been a management shift in many countries to a less expensive 1-stage strategy and in selective cases to the use of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention. These appear very attractive options on many levels, not least cost. However, with a consensus on the definition of joint infection only clarified in 2011, there is still the need for high quality cost analysis data to be collected on how the use of these different methods could impact the healthcare expenditure of countries around the world. With a projected spend on revision for infection at US$1.62 billion in the US alone, this data is vital and urgently needed.