Search

Background and Purpose: The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated., Patients and Methods: All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate., Results: 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure., Interpretation: There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Aims: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition., Methods: This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance., Results: This process evolved a three-level approach to the diagnostic continuum, resulting in a definition set and guidance, which has been fully endorsed by EBJIS, MSIS, and ESGIAI., Conclusion: The definition presents a novel three-level approach to diagnosis, based on the most robust evidence, which will be useful to clinicians in daily practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):18-25.

Prosthetic joint infection A prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication that can lead to lengthy hospitalization, significant limitations in mobility, and a reduced quality of life. For acute PJI, the aim is to cure the infection whilst retaining the prosthesis; this can be achieved by means of thorough surgical debridement, cleaning of the artificial material, replacement of exchangeable prosthesis parts and adjuvant antibiotic therapy. In cases of chronic PJI, the prosthetic joint needs to be replaced. For patients in whom surgery is not feasible, or who refuse surgical intervention, chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy can be applied if the infection persists. In order to increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome, it is important to take a multidisciplinary approach.

Background and Purpose: Aseptic loosening and infection are 2 of the most common causes of revision of hip implants. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces not only the rate of revision due to infection but also the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. This suggests under-diagnosis of infections in patients with presumed aseptic loosening and indicates that current diagnostic tools are suboptimal. In a previous multicenter study on 176 patients undergoing revision of a total hip arthroplasty due to presumed aseptic loosening, optimized diagnostics revealed that 4-13% of the patients had a low-grade infection. These infections were not treated as such, and in the current follow-up study the effect on mid- to long-term implant survival was investigated., Patients and Methods: Patients were sent a 2-part questionnaire. Part A requested information about possible re-revisions of their total hip arthroplasty. Part B consisted of 3 patient-related outcome measure questionnaires (EQ5D, Oxford hip score, and visual analog scale for pain). Additional information was retrieved from the medical records. The group of patients found to have a low-grade infection was compared to those with aseptic loosening., Results: 173 of 176 patients from the original study were included. In the follow-up time between the revision surgery and the current study (mean 7.5 years), 31 patients had died. No statistically significant difference in the number of re-revisions was found between the infection group (2 out of 21) and the aseptic loosening group (13 out of 152); nor was there any significant difference in the time to re-revision. Quality of life, function, and pain were similar between the groups, but only 99 (57%) of the patients returned part B., Interpretation: Under-diagnosis of low-grade infection in conjunction with presumed aseptic revision of total hip arthroplasty may not affect implant survival.

Gentamicin-containing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) beads are frequently used to prevent and treat orthopaedic infections. The beads are typically inserted to fill anatomical defects secondary to surgical debridement. Local gentamicin use results in low serum levels whilst achieving high concentrations at the site of infection. However, a systematic review of the available literature showed that, despite these theoretical advantages, no prospective study has thus far proven gentamicin-containing PMMA beads to be effective in treating orthopaedic infections. Available studies are based on small patient numbers and do not show significantly better results when local and parenteral antibiotics are combined compared with systemic therapy alone. These poor results may be explained partially by reduced aminoglycoside efficacy when biofilms or gentamicin-resistant bacteria are present. Moreover, little is known regarding the potential side effects of gentamicin-containing beads. In this paper, the pros and cons regarding the use of gentamicin-containing PMMA beads are discussed. It is concluded that more well-executed, prospective studies are needed to settle the discussion on the use of gentamicin-containing beads in the treatment of orthopaedic infections., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We investigated the hypothesis that many total hip arthroplasty revisions that are classified as aseptic are in fact low-grade infections missed with routine diagnostics., Methods: In 7 Dutch hospitals, 176 consecutive patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening of their total hip arthroplasty were enrolled. During surgery, between 14 and 20 tissue samples were obtained for culture, pathology, and broad-range 16S rRNA PCR with reverse line blot hybridization. Patients were classified as either not being infected, suspected of having infection, or infected according to strict, predefined criteria. Each patient had a follow-up visit after 1 year., Results: 7 patients were classified as infected, 4 of whom were not identified by routine culture. 15 additional patients were suspected of having infection. 20 of these 22 patients received a cemented prosthesis, fixated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. All 22 patients received prophylactic systemic antibiotics. 7 of them reported complaints one year after surgery, but only one showed signs of early loosening. However, additional surgery was not performed in any of the patients., Interpretation: Although the proportions were not as high as previously reported in the literature, between 4% and 13% of patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening were infected. However, as thorough debridement was performed during surgery and prophylactic antibiotics were used, the diagnosis of infection did not have any obvious clinical consequences, as most patients performed well at the 1-year follow-up. Whether this observation has implications for long-term implant survival remains to be seen.

Data from literature showed that a new type of metallic silver PMMA cement had good results in infection prophylaxis. This study investigated the in vivo efficacy of silver cement in the prevention of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcal infections, compared to plain and tobramycin-containing cement. In 48 rabbits, 0.6% silver, 1% silver, plain, or tobramycin PMMA cement was injected into the femoral medullary canal after contamination with 10(5), 10(6), or 10(7) colony forming units (CFU) Staphylococcus aureus. After 14 days, bone was collected for bacteriology and histopathology. All plain and silver cement rabbits were infected, whereas only two tobra rabbits were infected (p < 0.001). The number of bacteria cultured ((10)logCFU) from bone adjacent to the cement, was 6.4 +/- 0.3 and 6.1 +/- 0.3 for the 0.6% and 1% silver rabbits. For the rabbits with plain and tobra cement, this was 6.2 +/- 0.2 (p > 0.95) and 0.0 +/- 0.0 (p < 0.001), respectively. Two tobra rabbits had a positive culture of a distal bone sample. Histological sections of plain, 0.6%, and 1% silver rabbits all showed signs of infection; these signs were absent in the tobra rabbits. Silver and plain cement were not effective in preventing infection, whereas tobra cement was effective. As silver cement predominantly exhibits an antimicrobial effect at the direct cement surface, this cement seems less useful in situations where there are bacteria present in surrounding tissues, like revision surgery. Whether silver cement has relevance in the prevention of bacterial colonization of cement remains to be determined., (Copyright 2009 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

No options are available for local antibiotic delivery from uncemented implants. By loading a porous titanium implant with a biomimetic HA-coating (PeriApatite, PA) with antibiotics, we could obtain adequate local antibiotic concentrations and reduce infection susceptibility. This study investigated the efficacy of a tobramycin-loaded PA-coated titanium foam implant in preventing infection, as well as the effects on osseointegration. In 72 New Zealand White rabbits, an uncoated (Ti), PA-coated (PA), or Tobramycin-PA-coated (PA-tobra) titanium foam rod was implanted intramedullary in the left tibiae after contamination of the implant bed with none (control), 10(3), 10(4) or 10(5) CFU Staphylococcus aureus. PA-tobra implants were loaded with 2.4 mg tobramycin. After 28 days analysis was done by bacteriology, histopathology and histomorphometry. Six percent of the contaminated PA-tobra rabbits were infected, whereas this was 53 and 67% for PA and Ti, respectively (p < 0.001). Quantitative cultures were also significantly lower in the PA-tobra group (p = 0.003). None of the control rabbits were infected. Histopathological and histomorphometrical scores were both better for the PA-tobra group, although only significant compared to Ti. No significant differences were observed between PA and Ti rabbits. We conclude that the application of tobramycin to PA-coated titanium foam implants appears to be an effective local antibiotic strategy for uncemented implants for infection prophylaxis and has a beneficial effect on implant fixation, which will result in improved long-term implant survival., (Copyright 2008 Orthopaedic Research Society)

Background: Culture remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of bacterial infection, but molecular biological techniques have yielded promising results. In this study, we validated a combined polymerase chain reaction and reverse line blot hybridization protocol for identifying musculoskeletal infections., Methods: Samples were obtained from seventy-six patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery for various aseptic and septic indications. The diagnosis of infection was based on a review of all available clinical and culture data. In addition to routine culture for aerobic and anaerobic growth, samples were analyzed with a broad-range 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction and subsequent reverse line blot hybridization with use of twenty-eight group, genus, and species-specific oligonucleotide probes., Results: An infection was diagnosed on the basis of patient data in thirty-one patients. All but one of the patients with a clinical diagnosis of infection had a positive result of the polymerase chain reaction-reverse line blot hybridization. Five of the forty-five patients in whom an infection was not suspected on the basis of patient data had at least one positive result of the polymerase chain reaction-reverse line blot hybridization. Cultures demonstrated microorganisms in twenty-five patients with an infection and in two patients in whom an infection was not suspected on the basis of the patient data. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism grown on culture. The species identified by the polymerase chain reaction-reverse line blot hybridization was in full accordance with that grown on culture in all but one patient., Conclusions: Polymerase chain reaction-reverse line blot hybridization performed well in detecting and identifying the various bacterial species and was more sensitive than routine culture. It identified Staphylococcus aureus as the most frequently found microorganism. Five patients in whom an infection was not suspected on the basis of the patient data had a positive result of the polymerase chain reaction, which may have been caused by contamination of the samples. However, three of these patients had aseptic loosening of a total hip prosthesis, suggesting the presence of a low-grade bacterial infection that remained undetected by the culture but was detected by the polymerase chain reaction-reverse line blot hybridization., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III.