Search

Conventional radiography is regularly used to evaluate complications after total hip arthroplasty. In various recent consensus meetings, however, plain radiographs of a potentially infected hip joint have been judged as being only relevant to exclude diagnoses other than infection. Solid data on radiographic presentations of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are scarce. As a result, the prognostic value of radiological features in low-grade PJI remains uncertain. The present review article aims to present an overview of the available literature and to develop ideas on future perspectives to define the diagnostic possibilities of radiography in PJIs of the hip. The primary outcome of interest of this systematic review was the radiologic presentation of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip. As secondary outcome of interest served the sensitivity and specificity of the radiologic presentation of periprosthetic joint infections. Of the included articles, 26 were reviews, essays, or case reports and only 18 were clinical studies. Typical radiologic abnormalities of PJI were a periosteal reaction, a wide band of radiolucency at the cement-bone or metal-bone interface, patchy osteolysis, implant loosening, bone resorption around the implant, and transcortical sinus tracts. The frequency of their occurrence is still inadequately defined. A deeper understanding of the underlying causes and the relation between microorganisms to radiologic abnormalities can probably help clinicians in the future to diagnose a PJI. This is why further research shall focus on the radiographic features of PJI., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Graphic type differentiation of cell count data of synovial aspirates is a new method for the diagnosis of early and late periprosthetic joint infection., Objective: The aim of the study was to analyse if the same 6 LMNE-types can be differentiated in the new Yumizen H500 cell counter as it was the case for the old cell counter ABX Pentra XL 80 of previous publications, to verify if the erythrocyte and thrombocyte curves of the new device give additional information and to calculate the difference of cell count in LMNE-type I and III (with abrasion) in the cell counter and in the manual counting chamber (Neubauer improved)., Methods: 450 aspirates of 152 total hip arthroplasties and 298 knee arthroplasties obtained for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection were analysed with the Yumizen H500., Results: All LMNE-matrices of the 450 aspirates could assigned to one of the six LMNE-types. There were 76 LMNE-type I, 72 LMNE-type II, 14 LMNE-type III, 241 LMNE-type IV, 36 LMNE-type V and 12 LMNE-type VI. The erythrocyte and thrombocyte distribution curves were very helpful for differentiation of hematoma and infection. The cell count in the manual counting procedure was lower than in the cell counter: for the LMNE-type I (abrasion type) the median of the difference was 925/μL (median) and for the LMNE-type III (combined type of infection and abrasion) 3570/μL (median)., Conclusion: The described graphic type differentiation is a new and helpful method for differentiation of hematoma and early PJI as well as abrasion and late PJI.

Introduction: In septic two-stage revision surgery, success depends on numerous factors. Key steps are the procedure of ex- and reimplantation and the choice of spacer in the interim phase. The latter is still a matter of debate. Recently, we showed the microbial non-inferiority of a spacer technique using prosthetic cemented implants with an individualized antibiotic mixture in the cement applying a mechanically inferior cementation method. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical results of these spacers in view of either an endofemoral or a transfemoral procedure., Materials and Methods: Our collective consisted of 86 patients (45 endofemoral and 41 transfemoral procedures). The collective was analyzed with respect to complications, reinfection rate and clinical status at the end of the interim phase. Results of an endofemoral and transfemoral approach were compared., Results: With a median Staffelstein-Score of 60 (range 31-81) at the end of the interim phase, the first clinical results are promising. The reinfection-free rate after a median follow-up of 50 months was 90%. Spacer-related complications occurred in 8% of the total collective. Comparing the endo- and transfemoral procedure, there were no statistical differences in complications or regarding the clinical and infectiological outcome., Conclusions: In this study, we were able to show good clinical results for the presented spacer technique. With no relevant difference in outcome, the decision for an endofemoral or transfemoral technique can be based on technical deliberations. Further prospective comparative studies are necessary to show the clinical benefit of this procedure., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: A common reason for painful shoulder arthroplasties and revision surgery is a low-grade periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Diagnosing a low-grade infection is, however, a major diagnostic challenge. This applies even more to the shoulder, which differs from other large joints in terms of clinical features and microbiological spectrum. Aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of the synovial biopsy in the diagnostic workup of low-grade PJI of the shoulder., Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on 56 patients receiving revision surgery on their shoulder arthroplasty. A standardized preoperative workup was performed comprising CRP value, leukocyte blood count, synovial fluid microbiological analyses and leukocyte count from joint aspiration, and five synovial biopsy samples for bacteriologic and histologic analysis obtained through an arthroscopic approach. During revision surgery, five samples of periprosthetic tissue were harvested for bacteriologic and histologic analyses. The MSIS-Criteria 2014 were used to evaluate the diagnostic results., Results: In total, 15 of 56 revised prostheses turned out as PJI (27%). When applying our diagnostic workup, we obtained a sensitivity of 67% with a specificity of 95%. When performing a subgroup analysis on those patients that had received diagnostic biopsy, a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 83% could be achieved. With a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 83%, respectively, the biopsy is the single method with the highest diagnostic value., Conclusions: The sensitivity of only 67% of our standard workup emphasizes the difficulty to adequately diagnose low-grade infections after shoulder arthroplasty. The excellent specificity of 95% ensures, however, that non-infected prostheses are not incorrectly explanted. This study highlights that synovial biopsy has a high diagnostic value and should be done prior to complex revision surgeries to raise sensitivity in diagnosing a PJI., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Unexpectedly positive bacterial cultures during prosthesis revision surgery still occur on occasion despite good preoperative diagnostics. In such cases a six-week antibiotic therapy without further surgical intervention is recommended. The aim of this study was to find out how successful this procedure is., Methods: In a study of 508 patients, who required revision surgery of total hip (THA, n = 231) or knee arthroplasties (TKA, n = 277) because of component loosening, biopsy was carried out before their surgery. The collected tissue samples (5) from the biopsy and the revision surgery procedure itself were analyzed according the criteria of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM). Tests revealed 11 patients (7 THA, 4 TKA) with unexpectedly positive bacterial cultures from tissue samples obtained during the revision surgery due to false negative preoperative diagnostic results. These 11 patients were treated with 6 weeks antibiotic therapy and examined with a follow-up of at least 2 years (42.2 ± 16.5 months)., Results: Five patients (2 TKA, 3 THA) became reinfected, resulting in a success rate of 54.5%., Conclusion: Antibiotic therapy alone of an unexpected positive intraoperative bacterial culture in prosthesis revision surgery seems to be less successful than previously assumed.

Aims: Biopsy of the periprosthetic tissue is an important diagnostic tool for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as it enables the detection of the responsible microorganism with its sensitivity to antibiotics. We aimed to investigate how often the bacteria identified in the tissue analysis differed between samples obtained from preoperative biopsy and intraoperative revision surgery in cases of late PJI; and whether there was a therapeutic consequence., Methods: A total of 508 patients who required revision surgery of total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 231) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (n = 277) because of component loosening underwent biopsy before revision surgery. The tissue samples collected at biopsy and during revision surgery were analyzed according to the criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS)., Results: In total, 178 (113 THA, 65 TKA) were classified as infected. The biopsy procedure had a sensitivity of 93.8%, a specificity of 97.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.9%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.7%, and an accuracy of 96.1%. Of the 178 infected patients, 26 showed a difference in the detected bacteria from the biopsy and the revision surgery (14.6%). This difference required a change to antibiotic therapy in only two cases (1.1%)., Conclusion: Biopsy is a useful tool to diagnose PJI, but there may be a difference in the detected bacteria between the biopsy and revision surgery. However, this did not affect the choice of antibiotic therapy in most cases, rendering the clinical relevance of this phenomenon as low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):329-335.

Background: Preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is important because of the therapeutic consequences. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level can be used as a screening tool for late PJI., Materials and Methods: A cohort of 390 patients with revision surgery of total hip prostheses (200) or total knee prostheses (190) was assessed for late PJI by determining CRP serum level and performing preoperative aspiration with cultivation and intraoperative tissue analyses with cultivation and histologic examination, using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria., Results: A total of 180 joints were rated as PJI (prevalence 46%). Of these, 42.8% (77) showed a CRP level below 10 mg/L and 28.3% (51) showed a normal CRP level of less than 5 mg/L. The 76.9% of the cases with slow-growing bacteria showed a CRP level below 10 mg/L, and 61.5% showed a normal CRP level., Conclusions: Serum CRP level should not be used as a screening tool to rule out late PJI., Level of Evidence: Level 2 (diagnostic study).

Background: Studies on 1-stage exchange in septic shoulder arthroplasty are limited and show a wide variation of treatment strategies. This retrospective study investigated infection-free survival and function of 1-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm., Methods: The requirement for 1-stage exchange was an isolated microorganism from synovial fluid aspiration or synovial biopsy with an antibiotic susceptibility profile prior to revision surgery. If no microorganism was isolated or the underlying pathogen was a difficult-to-treat microorganism (not accessible for biofilm-active antibiotics, enterococci, and fungi), 2-stage exchange was performed. Function was assessed by the Constant score., Results: Fourteen patients were included, with a mean follow-up period of 5.8 years. The most and second most commonly detected microorganisms were Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, respectively. At 1-stage exchange, patients received local and systemic antibiotics based on the susceptibility profile of the microorganism. Twelve patients with insufficient rotator cuffs received reverse shoulder arthroplasty, whereas 2 patients with intact rotator cuffs underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The infection-free survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 100% and 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59%-99%), respectively, with 1 recurrence of infection 22 months after 1-stage exchange. Another patient with limited range of motion underwent revision 6 months postoperatively, leading to a revision-free survival rate of 93% (95% CI, 59%-99%) and 86% (95% CI, 54%-96%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The mean Constant score was 65 (range, 44-95)., Conclusion: One-stage exchange with prior detection of the underlying microorganism provides satisfactory infection-free survival and function., (Copyright © 2018 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is important because of the therapeutic consequences. This prospective study was designed to answer the question, if preoperative PCR analysis of the synovial fluid in addition to the culture and the CRP analysis of the blood are helpful for the diagnosis of PJI in knee arthroplasties. Before revision CRP analysis of the blood, cultivation and PCR analysis of synovial fluid of 116 knee endoprostheses were performed. During revision surgery, five tissue samples of the periprosthetic tissue were cultured and five further samples subjected to histological analysis. These analyses of the periprosthetic tissue were used to verify the results of the preoperative diagnostic methods. Twenty-seven prostheses were identified as infected (prevalence 23.3%). The combined analyses of the joint fluid cultivation and the CRP blood level resulted in a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 95.5%, a positive-predictive value of 84.0%, a negative-predictive value of 93.4% and an accuracy of 91.4%. The PCR analysis of the synovial fluid resulted in a sensitivity of 55.6%, a specificity of 82.0%, a positive-predictive value of 48.4%, a negative-predictive value of 85.9% and an accuracy of 75.9%. The sensitivity for culture of the aspirate and PCR analysis in combination with an elevated CRP level was 85.2%, the specificity 82.0%, the positive-predictive value 58.9%, the negative-predictive value 94.8% and the accuracy 82.7%. The preoperative PCR analysis of synovial fluid has only limited value in addition to the standard culture analysis.

There are several therapeutic options for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of shoulder arthroplasties. In acute infections, the implant can remain in place with open debridement, septic lavage with antibacterial solutions such as octinedine or polyhexanide solution and exchange of all mobile components. In late infections, the therapeutic options after removal of the infected implant are: permanent spacer, resection arthroplasty, one stage revision and two stage revision with or without a temporary spacer. The functional results are best for one stage revisions, with similar prosthetic survival to two stage revisions. For one stage revisions, the microorganism has to be identified prior to revision surgery, in order to use targeted antibiotics locally in the cement, and systemically., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Periprosthetic joint infection of shoulder arthroplasties is one of the most frequent reasons for pain and revision surgery of shoulder arthroplasties. Propionibacterium acnes is one of the commonest microorganisms causing periprosthetic joint infection in shoulder arthroplasties. It is difficult to detect this slow growing microorganism. This paper gives an overview of the different diagnostic methods. A combination of unspecific and specific tests (detection of microorganism and sensitivity to antibiotics) is helpful in identifying a periprosthetic shoulder infection. Aspiration of the joint can combine different unspecific and specific tests. In patients with punctio sicca and suspected periprosthetic joint infection, we recommend biopsy of periprosthetic tissue., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikt: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: The treatment of periprosthetic infections of hip arthroplasties typically involves use of either a single- or two-stage (with implantation of a temporary spacer) revision surgery. In patients with severe acetabular bone deficiencies, either already present or after component removal, spacers cannot be safely implanted. In such hips where it is impossible to use spacers and yet a two-stage revision of the prosthetic stem is recommended, we have combined a two-stage revision of the stem with a single revision of the cup. To our knowledge, this approach has not been reported before., Questions/purposes: (1) What proportion of patients treated with single-stage acetabular reconstruction as part of a two-stage revision for an infected THA remain free from infection at 2 or more years? (2) What are the Harris hip scores after the first stage and at 2 years or more after the definitive reimplantation?, Methods: Between June 2009 and June 2014, we treated all patients undergoing surgical treatment for an infected THA using a single-stage acetabular revision as part of a two-stage THA exchange if the acetabular defect classification was Paprosky Types 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, or pelvic discontinuity and a two-stage procedure was preferred for the femur. The procedure included removal of all components, joint débridement, definitive acetabular reconstruction (with a cage to bridge the defect, and a cemented socket), and a temporary cemented femoral component at the first stage; the second stage consisted of repeat joint and femoral débridement and exchange of the femoral component to a cementless device. During the period noted, 35 patients met those definitions and were treated with this approach. No patients were lost to followup before 2 years; mean followup was 42 months (range, 24-84 months). The clinical evaluation was performed with the Harris hip scores and resolution of infection was assessed by the absence of clinical signs of infection and a C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L. All patients were assessed before surgery, between stages, every 3 months during the first year after surgery, every 6 months during the second year postoperative, and at latest followup, and were retrospectively drawn from a longitudinally maintained institutional database., Results: Thirty-four of 35 patients (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.4%-99.5%) appeared free of infection by criteria of Masri et al. and Zimmerli et al. at latest followup. The Harris hip score was 61 ± 13 points after the first operation and 82 ± 16 points 2 years after the second operation., Conclusions: This technique is a promising treatment option for periprosthetic infections of the hip in which substantial acetabular defects exclude implantation of a normal spacer and a two-stage revision of the femoral component is favored., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background: Papers concerning the treatment of periprosthetic infections and acute hematogenous infections often concern inhomogeneous treatment concepts or low numbers of patients; this results in inconsistent rates of treatment success., Methods: Thirty-nine patients with early periprosthetic infections and 28 patients with acute hematogenous infections were treated with a homogeneous concept and followed with a mean period of 41.8 (24-132) months in order to investigate the success rate and influencing factors. All patients were treated with open surgical debridement, a revision of all removable components and irrigation with an antiseptic solution (octinedine). All patients received a systemic vancomycin/rifampicin antibiotic therapy until the microorganism causing the infection could be identified; a specific antibiotic therapy then followed until the end of the sixth week., Results: This unified treatment regimen resulted in an overall success rate of 71.6%, an 82.1% success for early infections and 57.1% for acute hematogenous infections. Variables that influenced the recurrence of an infection were the timespan between revision and first appearance of symptoms (<2 days), the number of previous operations, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and nicotine abuse., Conclusion: It appears that, in cases of early postoperative infection, a reproducibly high rate of success in retaining an implant can be achieved with this specific therapy regime if surgical intervention can be carried out within 2 days of first symptoms., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The value of a transfemoral approach for removal of well-fixed infected hip arthroplasties in 2-stage revision is unclear, especially whether cerclages for closure of the flap in the first step lead to higher reinfection rates and whether reopening of the flap for reimplantation of a hip arthroplasty leads to a lower union rate of the bony flap., Methods: Seventy-six septic 2-stage revisions via a transfemoral approach with cerclages for closure of the flap in the first step and reopening of the flap for reimplantation were followed prospectively for a mean period of 51.2 ± 23.2 (24-118) months., Results: The union rate of the bony flap after reimplantation was 98.7%, and no recurrence of reinfection was recorded in 93.4% of all cases. Subsidence of the stem occurred at a rate of 6.6%, dislocation at a rate of 6.6%, and there was no aseptic loosening of the implants. The Harris Hip Score was 62.2 ± 12.6 points with the spacer and 86.6 ± 15.5 points 2 years after reimplantation. Nine fractures (11.8%) of the flap occurred during the operation because of osteolytic or osteoporotic weakness of the flap itself, but these all healed without further intervention., Conclusion: The transfemoral approach is a safe method for septic revision of well-fixed hip prostheses, and the use of cerclage wires for closing the osteotomy flap in the first stage does not appear to lead to a higher reinfection rate. Similarly, the reopening of the flap does not appear to decrease the union rate of the flap., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of the synovial biopsy in the preoperative diagnosis of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip has not been clearly defined., Questions/purposes: We asked whether the value of a biopsy for a PJI is greater than that of aspiration and C-reactive protein (CRP)., Methods: Before revision in 100 hip endoprostheses, we obtained CRP values, aspirated the joint, and obtained five synovial biopsy samples for bacteriologic analysis and five for histologic analysis. Microbiologic and histologic analyses of the periprosthetic tissue during revision surgery were used to verify the results of the preoperative diagnostic methods. The minimum followup was 24 months (median 32; range, 24-47 months)., Results: Forty-five of the 100 prostheses were identified as infected. The biopsy, with a combination of the bacteriologic and histologic examinations, showed the greatest diagnostic value of all the diagnostic procedures and led to a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI, ± 11%), specificity of 98% (95% CI, ± 4%), positive predictive value of 97% (95% CI, ± 5%), negative predictive value of 87% (95% CI, ± 8.3%), and accuracy of 91%., Conclusions: The biopsy technique has a greater value than aspiration and CRP in the diagnosis of PJI of the hip (Masri et al. J Arthroplasty 22:72-78, 2007). In patients with a negative aspirate, but increased CRP or clinical signs of infection, we regard biopsy to be preferable to just repeating the aspiration., Level of Evidence: Level II prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The rate of infection control for one-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasties is unclear as are the factors influencing infection control. Such factors include duration of infection and the type of infected prosthesis., Questions/purposes: We therefore determined: (1) the rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses, (2) the clinical knee scores that can be achieved, (3) whether the duration of infection or the type of prosthesis influence the level of infection control, and (4) whether different types of prostheses influence the knee scores., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from 63 patients who underwent one-stage revisions of septic knee endoprostheses (six unicondylar, 37 primary total knee replacement prostheses, and 20 hinged knee endoprostheses) between 2004 and 2006. All were treated locally and systemically with microorganism-specific antibiotics. For this study we excluded patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis or unknown microorganisms. The patients were examined for infection every 3 months and Oxford and Knee Society scores were assessed at the same time. The minimum followup was 24 months (mean followup, 36 months; range, 24-70 months)., Results: None of the patients with replacement unicondylar and primary total knee replacement prostheses had recurrence of infection. Three of the 20 patients with the hinged infected knee prostheses had recurrences; these three patients had chronic infections and had undergone two to three revision operations during at least a 5-year period. The likelihood of infection control was influenced by the duration of infection. The mean Knee Society knee score 24 months after surgery was 72 points (range, 20-98 points), the Knee Society function score was 71 points (range, 10-100 points), and the Oxford-12 knee score was 27 points (range, 13-44 points)., Conclusions: One-stage revision of septic knee prostheses achieved an infection control rate of 95% and higher knee scores than reported for two-stage revisions. Higher rates of recurrent infection appeared to be associated with long-term chronic infections of hinged prostheses.

Background: Although antibiotic-loaded spacers are commonly used to treat periprosthetic infections, it is unclear whether spacers continue to release bactericidal levels of antibiotic 6 weeks after implantation., Questions/purposes: We asked whether an antibiotic can be detected in the tissue surrounding the spacer 6 weeks after implantation and whether the concentration is higher than the minimal inhibition concentration (MIC) previously determined for pathogens that are responsible for most periprosthetic infections., Methods: We removed 14 spacers used in two-stage septic revisions of infected hip prostheses 6 weeks after the primary implantations and determined the concentration of the antibiotics in the membrane formed between the spacer and the neighboring bone on the acetabular and the femoral sides. In seven cases Copal cement with gentamicin and clindamycin were used, and in seven other cases vancomycin was added to the Copal cement. Concentrations of the spacer antibiotics in the neighboring tissue were determined by tandem mass spectroscopy., Results: All three antibiotics were detected in concentrations higher than their MIC. There were no differences between the groups regardless whether vancomycin was added to the cement, or whether the cement was applied with the acetabular cup spacer or with the stem spacer., Conclusions: We concluded that, using the spacer technique described in this study, 6 weeks after spacer implantation, the concentrations of antibiotic are sufficient to treat a periprosthetic infection.

Background: Articulating spacers used in two-stage revision surgery of infected prostheses have the potential to abrade and subsequently induce third-body wear of the new prosthesis., Questions/purposes: We asked whether particulate material abraded from spacers could be detected in the synovial membrane 6 weeks after implantation when the spacers were removed for the second stage of the revision., Patients and Methods: Sixteen hip spacers (cemented prosthesis stem articulating with a cement cup) and four knee spacers (customized mobile cement spacers) were explanted 6 weeks after implantation and the synovial membranes were removed at the same time. The membranes were examined by xray fluorescence spectroscopy, xray diffraction for the presence of abraded particles originating from the spacer material, and analyzed in a semiquantitative manner by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Histologic analyses also were performed., Results: We found zirconium dioxide in substantial amounts in all samples, and in the specimens of the hip synovial lining, we detected particles that originated from the metal heads of the spacers. Histologically, zirconium oxide particles were seen in the synovial membrane of every spacer and bone cement particles in one knee and two hip spacers., Conclusions: The observations suggest cement spacers do abrade within 6 weeks. Given the presence of abrasion debris, we recommend total synovectomy and extensive lavage during the second-stage reimplantation surgery to minimize the number of abraded particles and any retained bacteria.

Many concepts have been devised for the treatment of late periprosthetic infections of total hip prostheses. A two-stage revision with a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and a cemented prosthesis appears to be the most preferred procedure although, in recent times, there seems to be a trend towards cementless implants and a shorter period of antibiotic treatment. Because of the differences in procedure, not only between studies but also within studies, it cannot be decided which period of parenteral antibiotic treatment and which spacer period is the most suitable. The fact that comparable rates of success can be achieved with different treatment regimens emphasises the importance of surgical removal of all foreign materials and the radical debridement of all infected and ischaemic tissues and the contribution of these crucial procedures to the successful treatment of late periprosthetic infections.

Unlabelled: Cementless two-stage revision of infected total hip prostheses lacks the possibility of local antibiotic protection of the implant at the time of reimplantation, which leads to the concern that this protocol may not sufficiently eradicate periprosthetic infection. Moreover, early implant loosening as much as 18% and stem subsidence as much as 30% have been reported. To determine whether a cementless revision could eradicate infection and achieve sufficient implant stability, we prospectively followed 36 patients with two-stage revisions for septic hip prostheses. We used a uniform protocol of a 6-week spacer interval, specific local and systemic antibiotic therapies, and cementless modular revision stems. The minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 35 months; range, 24-60 months). In one patient, the spacer was changed when the C-reactive protein value failed to normalize after 6 weeks, and the reimplantation was performed after an additional 6 weeks. No infections recurred. There was no implant loosening and a 94% bone-ingrowth fixation of stems. Subsidence occurred in two patients. The Harris hip score increased from a preoperative mean of 41 to 90 at 12 months after reimplantation and later. Using cementless prostheses in two-stage revisions of periprosthetic infections of the hip in combination with a specific local and systemic antibiotic therapy seems to eradicate infection and provide implant stability., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background: The value of microbiological culture to diagnose late periprosthetic infection is limited, especially because standard methods may fail to detect biofilm-forming sessile or other fastidious bacteria. There is no agreement on the appropriate cultivation period, although this period is a crucial factor. This study was designed to assess the duration of culture that is necessary for reliable detection., Patients and Methods: Ten periprosthetic tissue specimens each were obtained during revision from 284 patients with suspected late hip or knee arthroplasty infection. Five samples were examined by microbiological culture over a 14-day period, and 5 were subjected to histologic analysis. To define infection, a pre-established algorithm was used; this included detection of indistinguishable organisms in >/=2 tissue samples or growth in 1 tissue sample and a positive result of histologic analysis (>5 neutrophils in at least 10 high-power fields). The time to detection of organisms was monitored., Results: Infection was diagnosed in 110 patients. After 7 days (the longest incubation period most frequently reported), the detection rate via culture was merely 73.6%. Organisms indicating infection were found for up to 13 days. "Early"-detected species (mostly staphylococci) emerged predominantly during the first week, whereas "late"-detected agents (mostly Propionibacterium species) were detected mainly during the second week. In both populations, an unequivocal correlation between the number of culture-positive tissue samples and positive results of histologic analysis was noted, which corroborated the evidence that true infections were detected over the entire cultivation period., Conclusions: Prolonged microbiological culture for 2 weeks is promising because it yields signs of periprosthetic infection in a significant proportion of patients that would otherwise remain unidentified.

Background: Two-stage septic revision is the prevailing method for addressing late periprosthetic infections. Using at least dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement leads to synergistic effects with a more efficient elution of individual antibiotics. Recent data on the success rates of multiantibiotic cement spacers in two-stage revisions are rare. Methods: We conducted a retrospective follow-up single-center study involving 250 patients with late periprosthetic hip infections and 95 patients with prosthetic knee infections who underwent septic two-stage prosthesis revision surgery between 2017 and 2021. In accordance with the antibiotic susceptibility profile of the microorganisms, a specific mixture of antibiotics within the cement spacer was used, complemented by systemic antibiotic treatment. All patients underwent preoperative assessments and subsequent evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post operation and at the most recent follow-up. Results: During the observation period, the survival rate after two-step septic revision was 90.7%. Although survival rates tended to be slightly lower for difficult-to-treat (DTT) microorganism, there was no difference between the pathogen groups (easy-to-treat (ETT) pathogens, methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens). Furthermore, there were no differences between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. No difference in the survival rate was observed between patients with dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement without an additional admixture (Copal® G+C and Copal® G+V) and patients with an additional admixture of antibiotics to proprietary cement. Conclusion: Employing multiple antibiotics within spacer cement, tailored to pathogen susceptibility, appears to provide reproducibly favorable success rates, even in instances of infections with DTT pathogens and polymicrobial infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) can lead to secondary osteoarthritis of the other compartments. The objective of this study was to identify the frequency of PJIs in cases of UKA with progressed secondary osteoarthritis and the result of septic one-stage revision in these cases to verify the value of preoperative aspiration in cases of secondary osteoarthritis of UKA. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 97 patients with a unicompartmental arthroplasty who underwent revision surgery to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between January 2013 and March 2021 because of subsequent osteoarthritis. Preoperative aspiration and sample collection during the revision surgery were employed to identify potential periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The post-revision period was monitored for septic complications over an average duration of 55.7 ± 25.2 months (24–113). Results: PJIs were identified in 5.2% of cases through preoperative aspiration. In all instances of PJIs, a one-stage septic revision was performed, and notably, none of these cases experienced septic complications during the follow-up period. Conclusions: Preoperative aspiration is essential in order to exclude the presence of a PJI before performing revision surgery of UKA due to secondary osteoarthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rising number of arthroplasties is combined with a rising number of periprosthetic joint infections, which leads to life-concerning consequences for the patients, including extended antibiotic treatment, further surgery and increased mortality. The heterogeneity of the symptoms and inflammatory response of the patients due to, e.g., age and comorbidities and the absence of a single diagnostic test with 100% accuracy make it very challenging to choose the right parameters to confirm or deny a periprosthetic joint infection and to establish a standardized definition. In recent years, additional diagnostic possibilities have emerged primarily through the increasing availability of new diagnostic methods, such as genetic techniques. The aim of the review is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge about the various tests, including the latest developments. The combination of different tests increases the accuracy of the diagnosis. Each physician or clinical department must select the tests from the available methods that can be best implemented for them in organizational and technical terms. Serological parameters and the cultivation of the samples from aspiration or biopsy should be combined with additional synovial tests to create an accurate figure for the failure of the prosthesis, while imaging procedures are used to obtain additional information for the planned therapeutic procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]