Search

Background: Diagnostic accuracy of periprosthetic joint infection still remains controversial and an unsolved problem with respect to clinical signs and laboratory measures. Influencing factors of diagnosis like age, sex, abnormal physical findings and comorbidities are published with different results. The aim of our study was to find factors strengthening the diagnosis. Methods: We therefore retrospectively investigated all revision surgeries of total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in the years 2019 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital with special regard to diagnostic accuracy of periprosthetic joint infection and switch in diagnosis to aseptic mechanical loosening or vice versa. All patients were divided into 4 non-hierarchical groups: suspected and discharge diagnosis periprosthetic joint infection (P1), suspected and discharge diagnosis mechanical loosening (P2), suspected diagnosis mechanical loosening and discharge diagnosis periprosthetic joint infection (P3), suspected diagnosis PJI and discharge diagnosis mechanical loosening (P4). Results: In the years 2019–2020, 106 patients underwent revision surgery of total knee arthoplasty and total hip arthroplasty. 33 patients showed periprosthetic joint infection (31.1%) according to Infectious Diseases Society (IDSA) criteria, 73 patients showed mechanical loosening (68.9%). Of the periprosthetic joint infection -patients, 15 were men (46%) and 18 were women (54%). The patients with mechanical loosening were 27 men (37%) and 46 women (63%). In group P1 (25 patients), 22 could be classified according to the histopathological classification Krenn and Morawietz grade 2 and grade 3, 2 patients to grade 4 and one patient could not be classified. In group P3 (8 patients) all could be classified according to the classification Krenn and Morawietz grade 2 and 3. Groups P1 – P4 were correlated with categorial basic data: All Groups P1 – P4 showed a statistical correlation towards American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) categorization 3–4 versus ASA 2 (p = 0.01). In the pairwise comparison in the exact Fisher´s exact test P1 and P2 showed a statistical correlation towards ASA categorization 3–4 versus ASA 2 (p = 0.01). Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) categories 5–7 versus 0,1–2 and 3–4 showed a statistical correlation towards groups P1-P4 (p = 0.007) and in the pairwise comparison in the exact Fisher´s exact test a discrimination of P1 and P2 (p = 0.001) and P1 and P3 (p = 0.007). The preoperative corticoid therapy showed a statistical correlation to groups P1-P4 (p = 0.05) and in the pairwise comparison in the exact Fisher test a discrimination of P1 and P4 (p = 0.02). Conclusion: We therefore conclude that diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection still remains difficult. Switches in diagnosis during hospital stay from periprosthetic joint infection to aseptic mechanical loosening and vice versa are not unusual and the role of different diagnostic tools needs further investigation. Patients categorized according to ASA and CCI as severely ill might be more likely to be diagnosed correctly with periprosthetic joint infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare but serious complication of total joint arthroplasty (TJA). An accurate diagnosis of PJI preoperatively does not exist. Alpha-defensin (AD) is a proven and common indicator. The diagnostic marker of leukocyte esterase (LE) promises some advantages: feasibility, availability, and fast result reporting. The aim of this study was the evaluation of the predictive quality and correlation between both diagnostic tools in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods: A prospective study was conducted between April 2018 and August 2022. All patients with suspicion of PJI on hip and knee joint were included and underwent a routine and standardized joint punction. For laboratory diagnostics of AD, the synovial liquid was analyzed by ELISA. The sample was additionally applied to a LE test strip (Combur 10 Test, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). Results: A total of 249 patients were examined (mean age 67.12 ± 11.89; gender distribution man/woman 139 (55.8%)/110(44.2%), hip/knee 71(28.5%)/178 (71.5%). According to EBJIS criteria, PJI was diagnosed in 54 (21.7%) patients. AD showed excellent results with an AUC of 0.930 (sensitivity/specificity 0.870/0.990). LE yielded very good results with an AUC of 0.820 (sensitivity/specificity 0.722/0.918). Both parameters showed a strong positive correlation. Conclusion: LE is a rapidly available alternative in PJI diagnostics. The simultaneous determination of both markers may enhance diagnostic reliability. A routine usage may shorten the time from diagnosis to treatment of PJI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date only scanty data exist regarding the effect of failed debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention of the prostheses (DAIR) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the outcome of a subsequent exchange arthroplasty.Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the success rate of a two- or multi-stage procedure after initial failed DAIR/NPWT in patients with an acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and to evaluate the influence of possible risk factors for treatment failure.Methods: Nineteen consecutive patients with a persisting PJI and ongoing NPWT after treatment of an acute PJI with DAIR of the hip or knee joint from October 2010 to June 2017 were included. All patients were treated according to a structured treatment algorithm after referral to our hospital. The endpoint was a successful reimplantation with absence of signs of infection two years after replantation ("replantation group") or treatment failure ("treatment failure group") in terms of a permanent girdlestone arthroplasty, fistula, amputation or death. A risk factor analysis was performed between the two groups.Results: Explantation was performed in 15 cases, amputation in one case, and DAIR/establishment of a fistula in three cases. The treatment success rate after reimplantation in terms of "definitively free of infection" two years after surgery according to Laffer was 36.85% (seven out of 19 patients). Statistical analysis revealed the number of surgeries until wound consolidation (p= 0.007), number of detected bacterial strains (p= 0.041), a polymicrobial PJI (p= 0.041) and detection of a difficult-to-treat organism (p= 0.005) as factors associated with treatment failure. After failed DAIR/NPWT we could detect a significant higher number of different bacterial strains (p= 0.001).Conclusions: The treatment success rate after failed DAIR and NPWT with 36% is low and associated with a high treatment failure rate (permanent girdlestone arthroplasty, fistula or amputation, death). Thus, the definition of risk factors is crucial. We found that the number of revisions until wound consolidation, a polymicrobial PJI and detection of a difficult-to-treat organisms were risk factors for treatment failure. Furthermore, after failed DAIR/NPWT we could detect a significant higher number of different bacterial strains, with a possible adverse effect on a consecutive exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]