Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Periprosthetic tissue cultures, sonication and synovial fluid cultures remain the gold standard for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis. However, some 15–20% culture-negative PJI are still reported. Therefore, there is the need for other diagnostic criteria. One point of concern relative to the different definitions of PJI is as to the inclusion of the c-reactive protein (CRP) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) as diagnostic criteria for PJI despite them being non-specific inflammatory blood tests. Purpose The purpose of the present study was to determine the relevance of CRP and the ESR in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods All PJI with positive cultures over a two-year period in two hospitals were reviewed. The main variables of the present study were the type of prosthesis and the CRP level. More information was recorded in those patients with normal CRP: radiographs, physical examination records and the ESR. Results Seventy-three patients were included in study. Pre-operative CRP levels were normal (lower than 0.8 mg/dl) in 23 patients, representing 32% of all PJI with positive cultures. Low virulence micro-organisms, 12 coagulase-negative staphylococci and four P. acnes , grew in most of them. They represented 70% of all PJI with normal CRP levels. In addition, 17 patients (23% of all PJI with positive cultures) had a normal ESR, a normal physical examination (they only presented with pain) and no clear loosening was observed in the radiographs. Conclusions Per the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines or the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), 23% of the patients in the present study with PJI would never have been identified. Blood inflammatory markers such as the CRP level and ESR may not be accurate as diagnostic tools in PJI, particularly to identify low-grade and chronic PJI.

IntroductionStudies have shown that debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective procedure for acute infection of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to explore DAIR and one-stage revision for homogenous cohorts with acute postoperative and acute hematogenous infection of TKA, without compelling indications to perform a staged revision.Materials and methodsThis study was an exploratory analysis that used retrospective data from Queensland Health, Australia, for DAIR and one-stage revision of TKA between June 2010 and May 2017 (3-year average follow-up). The re-revision burden, mortality rate, and the cost of the interventions were explored. Costs were expressed in 2020 Australian dollars.ResultsThere were 15 (DAIR) and 142 (one-stage) patients with homogenous characteristics in the sample. The re-revision burden for DAIR was 20%, while for one-stage revision it was 12.68%. Two deaths were associated with a one-stage revision and no death was associated with DAIR. The total cost since the index revision of DAIR,$162,939, was higher than for one-stage revision $ 130,924 (p value = 0.501), due to higher re-revision burden.ConclusionsThis study would suggest the use of one-stage revision over DAIR for acute postoperative and acute hematogenous infection of TKA. It suggests that there could be other potential criteria which have not been ascertained that need to be considered for optimal DAIR selection. The study indicates the need for more research and, of note, high-quality randomized controlled trials to provide a well-defined treatment protocol with high level of evidence to guide patient selection for DAIR.

Purpose Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC) found in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are difficult to interpret. Management goes along with risks for both over- and undertreating a potential periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The objective of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of UPIC in revision TKA surgery, evaluate the diagnostic workup process and the postoperative treatment, and assess outcome regarding re-revision rates. Methods Evidence was gathered from Medline (PubMed) and Embase published from January 2000 until April 2021. Nine studies with data of UPIC in revision TKA and outcome after at least 2 years of follow-up were identified. Results The calculated prevalence of UPIC in aseptic knee revision surgery was 8.32%. However, the diagnostical approach differs as well as the used criteria to confirm PJI in presumed aseptic revision surgery. The work-up generally consists of a serum C-reactive protein and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, joint fluid aspiration for culture and white blood cell count and formula, and radiographic imaging. Collection of intraoperative cultures is widely used, but inconsistent in sample amount and incubation time. Once a single UPIC is found, surgeons tend to treat it in different ways. Regarding re-revision rates, the weighted arithmetic mean in the included studies was 18.45% in the unsuspected PJI group compared to 2.94% in the aseptic group. There also seems to be a trend towards higher re-revision rates when a higher number of intraoperative cultures are positive. Conclusion The interpretation of UPIC in revision TKA is of utmost importance since the decision whether to treat a UPIC as an unsuspected PJI has a major impact on implant survival and re-revision rate. Different criteria are used to differentiate between unsuspected PJI and contamination in true aseptic failure, and the heterogeneity amongst the included papers impedes to state a clear recommendation, integrating not only quantitative findings, but also qualitative data such as virulence of the identified microorganism. Level of evidence Systematic review, III.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreadful complications after THA and TKA. Though prevention is of utmost importance in PJI management, the last decade has seen many remarkable developments in PJI diagnosis, including the introduction of several standardized PJI diagnostic definitions and biomarkers. Depending on the specific clinical situation, a myriad of treatment options for PJI are offered. Our review aims to summarize the pertinent information on PJI diagnosis and synthesize literature on the different treatment methods currently used in clinical practice. One of the most accepted PJI diagnostic definitions was developed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2011, later modified in the 2013 International Consensus Meeting (ICM). After promising results from studies, alpha-defensins and D-dimer were recently incorporated into the 2018 ICM PJI definition. The management choices for PJI include irrigation and debridement (DAIR), one-stage exchange arthroplasty, or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, to name a few. While two-stage revision has traditionally been the treatment of choice in the United States, there has been a growing body of evidence framing one-stage revision as a comparable choice. One-stage revision should be offered in patients meeting strict selection criteria: no sinus tract, proper soft tissue available for wound closure, appropriate bone stock, a favorable identifiable organism with encouraging antibiotic sensitivities (for cement and oral suppression later), and robust immunological status. DAIR can be considered in case of early infections with sensitive infecting organisms. Patients with multiple unsuccessful revisions or those who refuse further surgical intervention for PJI can be offered antibiotic suppression. If nothing seems to work, salvage procedures (resection arthroplasty and arthrodesis) are available as a last resort. Further research is encouraged to improve on diagnostic capabilities and develop evidence on the best treatment of choice for PJI.

These guidelines are intended for use by infectious disease specialists, orthopedists, and other healthcare professionals who care for patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI). They include evidence-based and opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with PJI treated with debridement and retention of the prosthesis, resection arthroplasty with or without subsequent staged reimplantation, 1-stage reimplantation, and amputation.

While implant-related infections continue to play a relevant role in failure of implantable biomaterials in orthopaedic and trauma there is a lack of standardised microbiological procedures to identify the pathogen(s). The microbiological diagnosis of implant-related infections is challenging due to the following factors: the presence of bacterial biofilm(s), often associated with slow-growing microorganisms, low bacterial loads, previous antibiotic treatments and, possible intra-operative contamination. Therefore, diagnosis requires a specific set of procedures. Based on the Guidelines of the Italian Association of the Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the World Association against Infection in Orthopaedics and Trauma has drafted the present document. This document includes guidance on the basic principles for sampling and processing for implant-related infections based on the most relevant literature. These procedures outline the main microbiological approaches, including sampling and processing methodologies for diagnostic assessment and confirmation of implant-related infections. Biofilm dislodgement techniques, incubation time and the role of molecular approaches are addressed in specific sections. The aim of this paper is to ensure a standardised approach to the main microbiological methods for implant-related infections, as well as to promote multidisciplinary collaboration between clinicians and microbiologists.

Aims Preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative cultures play pivotal roles in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and pathogen identification. But the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative synovial fluid culture remains unknown. We aim to determine (1) the discordance between preoperative and intraoperative synovial fluid (SF) culture and. (2) compared to intraoperative synovial fluid cultures, the sensitivity of preoperative aspiration fluid culture. Then the following question is tried to be answered: Are intraoperative synovial fluid re-cultures necessary if the preoperative aspiration culture is positive? Materials and methods Between 2015 and 2019, 187 PJI patients managed with surgeries were included in this study. Compared to intraoperative synovial fluid culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of preoperative aspiration culture were calculated. Then, the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative SF culture was analyzed. Results The sensitivity of preoperative aspiration culture was 81.29% compared to intraoperative synovial fluid cultures. Concordance was identified in 147 PJI (78.61%) patients and culture discordance occurred in 40 patients (21.39%). In these discordant PJI patients, 24 patients (60%) were polymicrobial and no intraoperative synovial fluid culture growth was found in 16 PJI cases (40%). Preoperative monomicrobial staphylococcus results had a sensitivity of and a specificity of 80.43% and 83.16%, respectively. Preoperative polymicrobial results had the lowest sensitivity. Conclusions The intraoperative synovial fluid re-cultures are necessary if the preoperative aspiration culture is positive and the discordance between preoperative aspiration culture and intraoperative synovial fluid culture should be noted especially when Streptococcus spp. and more than one pathogen was revealed by preoperative aspiration culture. Level of evidence: Level III.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication following joint replacement surgery, posing significant challenges to orthopedic surgeons. Due to the lack of a definitive diagnostic gold standard, timely treatment initiation is problematic, resulting in substantial economic burdens on patients and society. In this review, we thoroughly analyze the complexities of PJI and emphasize the importance of accurate diagnosis and effective treatment. The article specifically focuses on the advancements in diagnostic techniques, ranging from traditional pathogen culture to advanced molecular diagnostics, and discusses their role in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Additionally, we review the latest surgical management strategies, including everything from debridement to revision surgeries. Our summary aims to provide practical information for the diagnosis and treatment of PJI and encourages further research to improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes.

The definition of peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has a strong impact on the diagnostic pathway and on treatment decisions. In the last decade, at least five different definitions of peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been proposed, each one with intrinsic limitations. In order to move a step forward, the World Association against Infection in Orthopedics and Trauma (W.A.I.O.T.) has studied a possible alternative solution, based on three parameters: 1. the relative ability of each diagnostic test or procedure to Rule OUT and/or to Rule IN a PJI; 2. the clinical presentation; 3. the distinction between pre/intra-operative findings and post-operative confirmation. According to the WAIOT definition, any positive Rule IN test (a test with a specificity > 90%) scores +1, while a negative Rule OUT test (a test with a sensitivity > 90%) scores −1. When a minimum of two Rule IN and two Rule OUT tests are performed in a given patient, the balance between positive and negative tests, interpreted in the light of the clinical presentation and of the post-operative findings, allows to identify five different conditions: High-Grade PJI (score ≥ 1), Low-Grade PJI (≥0), Biofilm-related implant malfunction, Contamination and No infection (all scoring < 0). The proposed definition leaves the physician free to choose among different tests with similar sensitivity or specificity, on the basis of medical, logistical and economic considerations, while novel tests or diagnostic procedures can be implemented in the definition at any time, provided that they meet the required sensitivity and/or specificity thresholds. Key procedures to confirm or to exclude the diagnosis of PJI remain post-operative histological and microbiological analysis; in this regard, given the biofilm-related nature of PJI, microbiological investigations should be conducted with proper sampling, closed transport systems, antibiofilm processing of tissue samples and explanted biomaterials, and prolonged cultures. The proposed WAIOT definition is the result of an international, multidisciplinary effort. Next step will be a large scale, multicenter clinical validation trial.

Background Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our meta-analysis aimed to identify the individual-related risk factors that predispose patients to PJI following primary THA. Methods Comprehensive literature retrieval from Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to Feb 20th, 2021. Patient-related risk factors were compared as per the modifiable factors (BMI, smoke and alcohol abuse), non-modifiable factors (gender, age), and medical history characteristics, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), avascular necrosis (AVN) of femoral head, femoral neck fracture, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cardiovascular disease (CVD), and osteoarthritis (OA) etc. The meta-analysis was applied by using risk ratios with 95% corresponding intervals. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were performed to further assess the credibility of the results. Results Overall, 40 studies with 3,561,446 hips were enrolled in our study. By implementing cumulative meta-analysis, higher BMI was found associated with markedly increased PJI risk after primary THA [2.40 (2.01–2.85)]. Meanwhile, medical characteristics including DM [1.64 (1.25–2.21)], AVN [1.65 (1.07–2.56)], femoral neck fracture [1.75 (1.39–2.20)], RA [1.37 (1.23–1.54)], CVD [1.34 (1.03–1.74)], chronic pulmonary disease (CPD) [1.22 (1.08–1.37)], neurological disease [1.19 (1.05–1.35)], opioid use [1.53 (1.35–1.73)] and iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) [1.15 (1.13–1.17)] were also significantly correlated with higher rate of PJI. Conversely, dysplasia or dislocation [0.65 (0.45–0.93)], and OA [0.70 (0.62–0.79)] were protective factors. Of Note, female gender was protective for PJI only after longer follow-up. Besides, age, smoking, alcohol abuse, previous joint surgery, renal disease, hypertension, cancer, steroid use and liver disease were not closely related with PJI risk. Conclusion Our finding suggested that the individual-related risk factors for PJI after primary THA included high BMI, DM, AVN, femoral neck fracture, RA, CVD, CPD, neurological disease, opioid use and IDA, while protective factors were female gender, dysplasia/ dislocation and OA.