Search

Background and purpose -- A new periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) definition has recently been proposed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). The goals of this paper are to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and compare it with previous definitions and to assess its accuracy in preoperative diagnosis. Patients and methods -- We retrospectively evaluated a multicenter cohort of consecutive revision total hip and knee arthroplasties. Cases with minimum required diagnostic workup were classified according to EBJIS, 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM 2018), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and modified 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definitions. 2 years' minimum follow-up was required to assess clinical outcome. Results -- Of the 472 cases included, PJI was diagnosed in 195 (41%) cases using EBJIS; 188 (40%) cases using IDSA; 172 (36%) using ICM 2018; and 145 (31%) cases using MSIS. EBJIS defined fewer cases as intermediate (5% vs. 9%; p = 0.01) compared with ICM 2018. Specificity was determined by comparing risk of subsequent PJI after revision surgery. Infected cases were associated with higher risk of subsequent PJI in every definition. Cases classified as likely/confirmed infections using EBJIS among those classified as not infected in other definitions showed a significantly higher risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases using MSIS (RR = 3, 95% CI 1-6), but not using ICM 2018 (RR = 2, CI 1-6) or IDSA (RR = 2, CI 1-5). EBJIS showed the highest agreement between preoperative and definitive classification (k = 0.9, CI 0.8-0.9) and was better at ruling out PJI with an infection unlikely result (sensitivity 89% [84-93], negative predictive value 90% [85-93]). Conclusion -- The newly proposed EBJIS definition emerged as the most sensitive of all major definitions. Cases classified as PJI according to the EBJIS criteria and not by other definitions seem to have increased risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases. EBJIS classification is accurate in ruling out infection preoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — The main purpose of arthroplasty registries is to collect information on patients, techniques, and devices to monitor and improve the outcome of the specific procedure. This study analyses the role played by registries in the orthopedic research community and describes publication trends, characteristics, and patterns of this field of research. Patients and methods — A descriptive-bibliometric review was conducted. Scopus was the database used for the research. All articles published from 1991 to December 2020 containing keywords related to registries and arthroplasty were considered. In particular, the following dimensions were analyzed in detail: (i) papers/year; (ii) journals; (iii) countries; (iv) research growth rate; (v) collaboration among countries. VOSviewer software was used to perform the bibliometric analysis. Finally, the 50 most cited papers of the last 10 years were briefly analyzed. Results — 3,933 articles were identified. There has been growing interest in the topic since 2010. Acta Orthopaedica ranked first for the number of articles published. The country with the largest number of articles citing registries was the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Sweden. The relative number of articles per 100,000 inhabitants is 0.60 for Europe and 0.38 for the United States. The literature in this research area has an average yearly growth rate of 28%. Interpretation — The publication rate in the field of arthroplasty registries is constantly growing with a noteworthy impact in the evolution of this research and clinical area. The growth rate is significantly higher than that of arthroplasty literature (28% vs. 10%) and the collaboration among countries is strong and increasing with time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — The trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) may be used as an adjunct to a sliding hip screw (SHS) in the treatment of trochanteric fractures to increase construct stability. We performed a scoping review of the literature to clarify when and how the TSP may be useful. Methods — A systematic search was performed in 5 databases and followed by a backwards-and-forwards citation search of the identified papers. 24 studies were included. Results — 6 biomechanical studies and 18 clinical studies were included in the review. The studies presented mainly low-level evidence. All studies were on unstable trochanteric fractures or fracture models. Due to the heterogeneity of methods and reporting, we were not able to perform a meta-analysis. In the biomechanical trials, the TSP appeared to increase stability compared with SHS alone, up to a level comparable with intramedullary nails (IMNs). We identified 1,091 clinical cases in the literature where a TSP had been used. There were 82 (8%) reoperations. The rate of complications and reoperations for SHS plus TSP was similar to previous reports on SHS alone and IMN. It was not possible to conclude whether the TSP gave better clinical results, when compared with either SHS alone or with IMN. Interpretation — The heterogeneity of methods and reporting precluded any clear recommendations on when to use the TSP, or if it should be used at all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]