Search

Background : Differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated postoperative wound drainage after arthroplasty is crucial to prevent unnecessary reoperation. Prospective data about the duration and amount of postoperative wound drainage in patients with and without prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are currently absent. Methods : A multicentre cohort study was conducted to assess the duration and amount of wound drainage in patients after arthroplasty. During 30 postoperative days after arthroplasty, patients recorded their wound status in a previously developed wound care app and graded the amount of wound drainage on a 5-point scale. Data about PJI in the follow-up period were extracted from the patient files. Results : Of the 1019 included patients, 16 patients (1.6 %) developed a PJI. Minor wound drainage decreased from the first to the fourth postoperative week from 50 % to 3 %. Both moderate to severe wound drainage in the third week and newly developed wound drainage in the second week after a week without drainage were strongly associated with PJI (odds ratio (OR) 103.23, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 26.08 to 408.57, OR 80.71, 95 % CI 9.12 to 714.52, respectively). The positive predictive value (PPV) for PJI was 83 % for moderate to heavy wound drainage in the third week. Conclusion : Moderate to heavy wound drainage and persistent wound drainage were strongly associated with PJI. The PPV of wound drainage for PJI was high for moderate to heavy drainage in the third week but was low for drainage in the first week. Therefore, additional parameters are needed to guide the decision to reoperate on patients for suspected acute PJI., Competing Interests: The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests., (Copyright: © 2023 Henk Scheper et al.)

Background : prompt recognition and identification of the causative microorganism in acute septic arthritis of native and prosthetic joints is vital to increase the chances of successful treatment. The aim of this study was to independently assess the diagnostic accuracy of the multiplex BIOFIRE ® Joint Infection (JI) Panel (investigational use only) in synovial fluid for rapid diagnosis. Methods : synovial fluid samples were collected at the University Medical Center Groningen from patients who had a clinical suspicion of a native septic arthritis, early acute (post-operative, within 3 months after arthroplasty) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or late acute (hematogenous, ≥ 3 months after arthroplasty) PJI. JI Panel results were compared to infection according to Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria and culture-based methods as reference standard. Results : a total of 45 samples were analysed. The BIOFIRE JI Panel showed a high specificity (100 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 78-100) in all patient categories. Sensitivity was 83 % (95 % CI: 44-97) for patients with a clinical suspicion of native septic arthritis ( n = 12 ), 73 % (95 % CI: 48-89) for patients with a clinical suspicion of a late acute PJI ( n = 14 ), and 30 % (95 % CI: 11-60) for patients with a clinical suspicion of an early acute PJI ( n = 19 ). Conclusion : the results of this study indicate a clear clinical benefit of the BIOFIRE JI Panel in patients with a suspected native septic arthritis and late acute (hematogenous) PJI, but a low clinical benefit in patients with an early acute (post-operative) PJI due to the absence of certain relevant microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus epidermidis , from the panel., Competing Interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of . The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor. No external funding was received for the study. Manufacturer bioMérieux was not involved in the execution of experiments or the analysis of the results. The BIOFIRE Joint Infection Panel was provided to the researchers cost-free by manufacturer bioMérieux., (Copyright: © 2023 Jorrit Willem Adriaan Schoenmakers et al.)

Background : A low-grade periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may present without specific symptoms, and its diagnosis remains a challenge. Three-phase bone scintigraphy (TPBS) and white blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy are incorporated into recently introduced diagnostic criteria for PJI, but their exact value in diagnosing low-grade PJI in patients with nonspecific symptoms remains unclear. Methods : In this retrospective study, we evaluated patients with a prosthetic joint of the hip or knee who underwent TPBS and/or WBC scintigraphy between 2009 and 2016 because of nonspecific symptoms. We reviewed and calculated diagnostic accuracy of the TPBS and/or WBC scintigraphy to diagnose or exclude PJI. PJI was defined based on multiple cultures obtained during revision surgery. In patients who did not undergo revision surgery, PJI was ruled out by clinical follow-up of at least 2 years absent of clinical signs of infection based on MSIS 2011 criteria. Results : A total of 373 patients were evaluated, including 340 TPBSs and 142 WBC scintigraphies. Thirteen patients (3.5 %) were diagnosed with a PJI. TPBS sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were 71 %, 65 %, 8 % and 98 %, respectively. Thirty-five percent of TPBS showed increased uptake. Stratification for time intervals between the index arthroplasty and the onset of symptoms did not alter its diagnostic accuracy. WBC scintigraphy sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 30 %, 90 %, 25 % and 94 %, respectively. Conclusion : Nuclear imaging does not have clear added value in patients with low a priori chance of periprosthetic joint infection., Competing Interests: Some of the authors are members of the editorial board of . The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2022 Karsten D. Ottink et al.)

Introduction : Chronic osteomyelitis is a challenging condition in the orthopedic practice and traditionally treated using local and systemic antibiotics in a two-stage surgical procedure. With the introduction of the antimicrobial biomaterial S53P4 bioactive glass (Bonalive ® ), chronic osteomyelitis can be treated in a one-stage procedure. This study evaluated the mid-term clinical results of patients treated with S53P4 bioactive glass for long bone chronic osteomyelitis. Methods : In this prospective multi-center study, patients from two different university medical centers in the Netherlands were included. One-stage treatment consisted of debridement surgery, implantation of S53P4 bioactive glass, and treatment with culture-based systemic antibiotics. If required, wound closure by a plastic surgeon was performed. The primary outcome was the eradication of infection, and a secondary statistical analysis was performed on probable risk factors for treatment failure. Results : In total, 78 patients with chronic cavitary long bone osteomyelitis were included. Follow-up was at least 12 months (mean 46; standard deviation, SD, 20), and 69 patients were treated in a one-stage procedure. Overall infection eradication was 85 %, and 1-year infection-free survival was 89 %. Primary closure versus local/muscular flap coverage is the only risk factor for treatment failure. Conclusion : With 85 % eradication of infection, S53P4 bioactive glass is an effective biomaterial in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis in a one-stage procedure. A major risk factor for treatment failure is the necessity for local/free muscle flap coverage. These results confirm earlier published data, and together with the fundamentally different antimicrobial pathways without antibiotic resistance, S53P4 bioactive glass is a recommendable biomaterial for chronic osteomyelitis treatment and might be beneficial over other biomaterials., Competing Interests: The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-authors have any competing interests, with the exception of Jan A. P. Geurts and Jacobus J. J. Arts, who are members of the clinical advisory board of Bonalive Ltd., Turku, Finland., (Copyright: © 2021 Tom A. G. Van Vugt et al.)

Background: Persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty is a scantily investigated topic, despite the claimed relation with a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection. This results in a lack of evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Without such guideline, clinical practice in orthopaedic hospitals varies widely. In preparation of a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on the optimal treatment of persistent wound leakage, we evaluated current Dutch orthopaedic care for persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire-based online survey among all 700 members of the Netherlands Orthopaedic Association, consisting of 23 questions on the definition, classification, diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 127 respondents, representing 68% of the Dutch hospitals that perform orthopaedic surgery. The results showed wide variation in the classification, definition, diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. 56.7% of the respondents used a protocol for diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage, but only 26.8% utilized the protocol in every patient. Most respondents (59.1%) reported a maximum period of persistent wound leakage before starting non-surgical treatment of 3 to 7 days after index surgery and 44.1% of respondents reported a maximum period of wound leakage of 10 days before converting to surgical treatment. Conclusions: The wide variety in clinical practice underscores the importance of developing an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. To this end, a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial will be conducted in the Netherlands, which may provide evidence on this important and poorly understood topic., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

Introduction: For chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI), complete removal of the infected prosthesis is necessary in order to cure the infection. Unfortunately, a subgroup of patients is not able to undergo a revision surgery due to high surgical risk. Alternatively, these patients can be treated with antibiotic suppressive therapy (AST) to suppress the infection. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of AST. Methods: We retrospectively collected data (period 2009-2015) from patients with a PJI (of hip, knee or shoulder) who were treated with AST at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. AST was defined as antibiotic treatment for PJI that was started after the usual 3 months of antibiotic treatment. The time of follow-up was defined from the time point AST was started. Treatment was considered as failed, when the patient still experienced joint pain, when surgical intervention (debridement, removal, arthrodesis or amputation) was needed to control the infection and/or when death occurred due to the infection. Results: We included 21 patients with a median age of 67 years (range 21 - 88) and with a median follow-up of 21 months (range 3 - 81). Coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) (n=6), S. aureus (n=6) and polymicrobial flora (n=4) were the most frequently found causative pathogens. Most patients with CNS and S. aureus were treated with minocycline (67%) and clindamycin (83%) as AST, respectively. Overall, treatment was successful in 67% of patients. Failure was due to persistent joint pain (n=1), surgical intervention because of an uncontrolled infection (n=3), and death due the infection (n=3). We observed a treatment success of 90% in patients with a 'standard' prosthesis (n=11), compared to only 50% in patients with a tumor-prosthesis (n=10). Also, treatment was successful in 83% of patients with a CNS as causative microorganism for the infection, compared to 50% in patients with a S. aureus . Patients who failed on AST had a higher ESR in comparison to patients with a successful treatment (mean 73 ± 25SD versus 32 ± 19SD mm/hour (p = 0.007), respectively. 43% of patients experienced side effects and led to a switch of antibiotic treatment or a dose adjustment in almost all of these patients. Conclusions: Removal of the implant remains first choice in patients with chronic PJI. However, AST is a reasonable alternative treatment option in a subgroup of patients with a PJI who are no candidate for revision surgery, in particular in patients with a 'standard' prosthesis and/or CNS as the causative micro-organism., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.