We compared the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage revision surgeries for periprosthetic joint infections of the knee and hip joints. Patients in both groups had similar reinfection rates and functional recovery, but two-stage hip patients experienced more complications, partly due to the temporary use of cement spacers. Our findings suggest that one-stage revision may be a viable alternative to two-stage revision, potentially reducing complications without increasing reinfection risk.

We compared the re-revision rates in rTHA and rTKA (revison total hip and knee arthroplasty) with and without AB (antibiotic) treatment in patients with UPICs (unexpected positive intraoperative cultures). The re-revision rate between the AB group and the non-AB group was similar. Postoperative AB treatment did not result in a decreased re-revision rate in patients with UPICs in presumed aseptic rTHA and rTKA. Patients with pathogens classified as a likely contaminant can be safely ignored.

Our study investigated olecranon septic bursitis treatment, focusing on postsurgical antibiotic use. Analyzing 22 years of Mayo Clinic data, we found that smoking and not administering antibiotics following surgery led to poorer outcomes. A 3-week antibiotic course following surgery was most effective. Our findings suggest that a subset of patients may benefit from longer courses of antibiotics; however, further research is needed to confirm these findings. 

Treatments for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are often assessed using a success or failure endpoint. Yet, this can fail to capture important outcomes for patients. A desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a way of evaluating treatments in a more patient-focused form. This study found an outcome ranking using joint function, infection cure and quality of life. This helps to answer what are we trying to achieve for patients with PJI and how we measure the effectiveness of PJI treatments.