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]

➢: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip hemiarthroplasty (HA) is a devastating complication, incurring immense health-care costs associated with its treatment and placing considerable burden on patients and their families. These patients often require multiple surgical procedures, extended hospitalization, and prolonged antimicrobial therapy., ➢: Notable risk factors include older age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, inadequate antibiotic prophylaxis, non-antibiotic-loaded cementation of the femoral implant, longer duration of the surgical procedure, and postoperative drainage and hematoma., ➢: Although the most frequent infecting organisms are gram-positive cocci such as Staphylococcus aureus, there is a higher proportion of patients with gram-negative and polymicrobial infections after hip HA compared with patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty., ➢: Several surgical strategies exist. Regardless of the preferred surgical treatment, successful management of these infections requires a comprehensive surgical debridement focused on eradicating the biofilm followed by appropriate antibiotic therapy., ➢: A multidisciplinary approach led by surgeons familiar with PJI treatment and infectious disease specialists is recommended for all cases of PJI after hip HA to increase the likelihood of treatment success., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSREV/A864)., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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: Various organizations have published definitions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with significant differences in the cut-offs of white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear (PMN) leukocyte cells. Herein, we aim to analyze optimal cut-offs in patients which are planned to undergo a prosthesis revision and compare them with the actual published thresholds of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) and European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). Methods: A test kit was compiled in a monocentric prospective study, according to the ICM criteria (2018) and 2021 EBJIS criteria. The kit was implemented using: blood samples (including leukocyte count and C-reactive protein); samples for examining the synovial fluid (WBC count, PMN cell differentiation, microbiological culture for incubation over 14 days, alpha-defensin ELISA laboratory test, and leukocyte-esterase test). The cut-offs for WBC and PMN counts were investigated using ROC analyses and Youden index. The ICM 2018 criteria were applied, using alpha-defensin in all cases. Patients which have to undergo a prosthesis revision were included, a pre-operative joint aspiration had been performed, and the patients had been followed up prospectively. Results: 405 patients were examined with the compiled test kit; 100% had a complete dataset with respect to alpha-defensin; 383 patients, according to WBC count; and 256, according to PMN cell differentiation The cut-off of 2478.89 cells/µl in the WBC count (sensitivity: 87.70%; specificity: 88.10%) and the cut-off of 66.99% in PMN differentiation showed the best accuracy (sensitivity: 86.00%; specificity: 88.80%). Other published cut-offs for WBC were tested in this cohort and showed the following accuracy: 3000/µl (EBJIS/ICM; sensitivity: 82.10%; specificity: 91.00%), 2000/µl (sensitivity: 89.60%; specificity: 83.40%), and 1500/µl (sensitivity: 91.50%; specificity: 75.00%). The published cut-offs for PMN had the following accuracy in this cohort: 80% (ICM; sensitivity: 66.3%; specificity: 96.50%), 70% (sensitivity: 82.6%; specificity: 90%), and 65% (EBJIS, sensitivity: 86%; specificity: 88.8%). Conclusions: This study aims to improve current cut-offs for PMN- and WB-Count, even though PJI diagnosis is based on the combination of all defined tests. The optimal diagnostic cut-off of WBC and PMN counts was found to be 2479/µL and 67%, respectively, whereas ICM cut-offs in this cohort seem too high, as they provide high specificity but very low sensitivity. On the other hand, a cut-off for WBC count of 1500/µl alone would be very low, leading to low specificity and very high suspicion of PJI. The current consensus guidelines could be actualized considering these results to significantly improve the diagnostic quality. Level of evidence: II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: D-Dimer was recently identified as an additional biomarker in the diagnosis of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Currently, there is only one study in literature dealing with the role of D-Dimer in the diagnosis of shoulder PJI. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to validate the sensitivity and specificity of D-Dimer in detecting shoulder PJI. Materials and methods: All patients, who underwent septic or aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty in our institution between November 2018 und March 2021, were analyzed. Our cohort consisted of 30 patients, of that 14 (47%) had a shoulder PJI according the last proposed criteria of the International Consensus Meeting. The diagnostic validity of serum D-Dimer regarding the detection of PJI was analyzed. Results: The mean D-Dimer level was significantly higher for the patients with shoulder PJI compared to patients with aseptic failure (1.44 ± 1 mg/l vs. 0.76 ± 0.6 mg/l, p = 0.025). Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly isolated pathogens, in 9/14 patients (64%), followed by Cutibacterium acnes in 5/14 patients (36%). According to the ROC analysis, a serum D-Dimer threshold of 0.75 mg/l had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 56% for detection of a shoulder PJI. The area under curve was 0.74. A serum C-reactive protein (CRP) cutoff of 10 mg/l showed a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 88%. When both serum D-Dimer and CRP above the thresholds of 0.75 mg/l and 10 mg/l, respectively, were used to identify a PJI the sensitivity and specificity were 57% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: Serum D-Dimer showed a good sensitivity but a poor specificity for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI. Combination D-Dimer and CRP led to improvement of the specificity, however, at the cost of sensitivity. Thus, combination of both methods may be used as a confirmatory test in the diagnosis of shoulder PJI but not to rule out infection. Level of evidence: Diagnostic level II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is a paucity of literature regarding serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in the evaluation of a shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of the current study was to establish cutoff values for diagnosing shoulder PJI and evaluate the influence of the type of infecting microorganism and the classification subgroups according to last proposed International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria on the CRP level. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of all 136 patients, who underwent septic or aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty in our institution between January 2010 and December 2019, was performed. Shoulder PJI was defined according to the last proposed definition criteria of the ICM. Serum CRP levels were compared between infected and non-infected cases, between infection subgroups, as well as between different species of infecting microorganisms. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to display sensitivity and specificity of serum CRP level for shoulder PJI. Results: A total of 52 patients (38%) were classified as infected, 18 meeting the criteria for definitive infection, 26 for probable infection and 8 for possible infection. According to the ROC curve, an optimized serum CRP threshold of 7.2 mg/l had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 74% (area under curve = 0.72). Patients with definitive infection group demonstrated significantly higher median serum CRP levels (24.3 mg/l), when compared to probable, possible infection groups and PJI unlikely group (8 mg/l, 8.3 mg/l, 3.6 mg/l, respectively, p < 0.05). The most common isolated microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes in 25 patients (48%) followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) in 20 patients (39%). Patients with a PJI caused by high-virulent microorganisms had a significantly higher median serum CRP level compared to patients with PJI caused by low-virulent microorganisms (48 mg/l vs. 11.3 mg/l, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Serum CRP showed a low sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI, even applying cutoffs optimized by receiver-operating curve analysis. Low-virulent microorganisms and patients with probable and possible infections are associated with lower CRP levels compared to patients with definitive infection and infections caused by high-virulent microorganisms. Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoprosthesis infections represent a major challenge for doctors and patients. Due to the increase in endoprosthesis implantation because of the increasing life expectancy, an increase in endoprosthesis infections is to be expected. In addition to infection prophylaxis, methods of infection control become highly relevant, especially in the group of geriatric and multimorbid patients. The aim is to reduce the high 1‑year mortality from prosthesis infections through a structured algorithm., Algorithm for Prosthesis Infections: Prosthesis infections can basically be divided into early and late infections. According to the criteria of the International Consensus Meeting, a late infection is defined as the occurrence more than 30 days after implantation. With respect to the planned approach, the (p)TNM classification offers an orientation. In the early postoperative interval the clinical appearance is crucial as in this phase neither laboratory parameters nor an analysis of synovial fluid show a high sensitivity. It is fundamental that, apart from patients with sepsis, environment diagnostics should be initiated. If a late infection is suspected, in addition to radiological diagnostics (X-ray, skeletal scintigraphy and if necessary, computed tomography, CT), laboratory (C-reactive protein, CRP, leukocytes, blood sedimentation, and if necessary, interleukin‑6, procalcitonin) and microbiological diagnostics (arthrocentesis with synovial analysis and microbiology) are indicated; however, in addition to the arthrocentesis result, the clinical appearance is crucial in cases where an exclusion cannot be confirmed by laboratory parameters. If an infection is confirmed, the treatment depends on the spectrum of pathogens, the soft tissue situation and the comorbidities, including a multistage procedure with temporary explantation and, if necessary, implantation of an antibiotic-containing spacer is necessary. A prosthesis preservation using the debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) regimen is only appropriate in an acute infection situation. Basically, radical surgical debridement should be carried out to reduce the pathogen load and treatment of a possible biofilm formation for both early and late infections. The subsequent antibiotic treatment (short or long interval) should be coordinated with the infectious disease specialists., Conclusion: A structured approach for prosthesis infections oriented to an evidence-based algorithm provides a sufficient possibility of healing. An interdisciplinary approach involving cooperation between orthopedic and infectious disease specialists has proven to be beneficial. Surgical treatment with the aim of reducing the bacterial load by removing the biofilm with subsequent antibiotic treatment is of intrinsic importance., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Purposes: This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the sonication cultures according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria and to evaluate the effect of sonication on the antibiotic treatment of patients.Methods: Sixty-four patients who were scheduled for revision hip or knee arthroplasties were included in the study. Aspiration fluid, tissue, and sonication cultures were performed from all patients and compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy. Other targets of the study were to investigate the rate of change in the antibiotic treatment.Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained by the sonication method were 71.4%, 96.6%, 96.2%, 73.7%, and 82.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained after tissue sampling were 68.6%, 100%, 100.0%, 72.5%, and 82.8%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the sonication method and tissue culture in terms of sensitivity and specificity (p = 1.0). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained by the aspiration method were 28.6%, 93.1%, 83.3%, 51.9%, and 57.8%, respectively. Treatment change was applied in 10 (15.6%) patients.Conclusion: Our prospectively collected data revealed that sonication of the explants alone did not increase the sensitivity, and we found that sonicate culture sometimes changed the antibiotic therapy strategy in patients with periprosthetic joint infection because different microorganisms were detected.Trial Registration: This study was prospectively registered in a public trials registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , NCT04304885). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a significant burden in health care. Diagnosis and proper management are challenging. A standardised procedure for the diagnostic workup and surgical management provides clear benefits in outcome. Methods: Several diagnostic protocols and definitions for PJI were established in recent years. Proper PJI diagnosis remains critical for success and for choosing the optimal treatment option. A distinct workup of diagnostic steps, the evaluation of the results in a multidisciplinary setup and the meticulous surgical management of the infection are the key factors of successful treatment. Results: The management of PJI after TKA consists of early revision with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in early cases or staged revision in late infections beyond 30 days postoperative or after onset of acute symptoms. The revision is performed as a two-stage procedure with the use of a fixed or mobile antibiotic spacer, or in selected cases as a single-stage operation with the use of local and systemic antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: This paper reflects the opinion of two revision surgeons who follow the same protocol for diagnosis and treatment of PJI after TKA, highlighting the key steps in diagnosis and management. Level of evidence: Expert's opinion [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Periprosthetic infection is a relatively rare but potentially devastating complication after shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this article is to review the incidence, diagnosis, prevention, and management of periprosthetic infections after reverse shoulder arthroplasty, with a focus on literature published within the last 5 years. Recent Findings: The 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection provides us with a framework for the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic infections after shoulder arthroplasty. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher reported rate of infection compared with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Our current diagnostic tests do not appear to be as sensitive when compared with the hip and knee literature. Similar success has been reported with single and two-stage revision protocols, although prospective comparative data are lacking. The significance of unexpected positive cultures during revision arthroplasty remains unclear. Summary: We report current diagnostic and therapeutic options for periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Much of the current literature does not distinguish between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Further high-level studies are warranted to refine these definitions and guide management. [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]

Background: Antigen immunoassays to detect synovial fluid (SF) microorganisms have recently been made available for clinical use. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of an SF microorganism antigen immunoassay detection (MID) panel, evaluate the panel's capability to detect microorganisms in the setting of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and determine diagnostic predictive values of the MID panel for PJI., Methods: This study included 67,441 SF samples obtained from a hip or knee arthroplasty, from 2,365 institutions across the United States, submitted to 1 laboratory for diagnostic testing. All data were prospectively compiled and then were analyzed retrospectively. Preoperative SF data were used to classify each specimen by the International Consensus Meeting (2018 ICM) definition of PJI: 49,991 were not infected, 5,071 were inconclusive, and 12,379 were infected. The MID panel, including immunoassay tests to detect Staphylococcus, Candida, and Enterococcus, was evaluated to determine its diagnostic performance., Results: The MID panel demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.2% for infected samples that yielded positive cultures for target microorganisms (Staphylococcus, Candida, or Enterococcus). Among infected samples yielding positive cultures for their respective microorganism, individual immunoassay test sensitivity was 93.0% for Staphylococcus, 92.3% for Candida, and 97.2% for Enterococcus. The specificity of the MID panel for samples that were not infected was 98.4%, yielding a false-positive rate of 1.6%. The MID panel detected microorganisms among 49.3% of SF culture-negative infected samples. For PJI as a diagnosis, the positive predictive value of the MID panel was 91.7% and the negative predictive value was 93.8%. Among MID-positive PJIs, 16.2% yielded a discordant cultured organism instead of that detected by the antigen test., Conclusions: SF microorganism antigen testing provides a timely adjunct method to detect microorganisms in the preoperative SF aspirate, yielding a low false-positive rate and enabling the detection of a microorganism in nearly one-half of SF culture-negative PJIs., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H398 )., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Re-operation after septic failure of a one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is a highly challenging procedure with concerns over residual bone stock, soft tissues, and stability. The associated changes in microbiology in cases of reinfection are still largely unknown., Methods: A comprehensive analysis was performed of all patients treated at our tertiary institution between 2001 and 2017 who developed reinfection after a one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. Prerequisites for inclusion were a certain diagnosis of PJI according to the ICM criteria and a minimum follow-up of three years. Data on comorbidities, previous surgical interventions, microbiological findings at the time of the initial one-stage exchange and at the time of reinfection, detection methods, and antibiotic resistance patterns were retrospectively studied., Results: Sixty-six patients were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Reinfection occurred after a mean time interval of 27.7 months (SD ± 33.9, range 1-165). Ten types of bacteria were found that were not present before the one-stage exchange. The causative pathogen remained identical in 22 patients (33%) and additional microorganisms were detected in ten patients (15%). Half of the reinfections were however due to (a) completely different microorganism(s). A significant increase in the number of PJIs on the basis of high-virulent (23 vs 30, p = 0.017) and difficult-to-treat bacteria (13 vs 24, p = 0.035) was found., Conclusion: The present study provides a novel insight into the microbiological changes following septic failure after one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. A higher prevalence of more difficult-to-treat bacteria might increase the complexity of subsequent procedures. Also, a longer follow-up of these patients than previously suggested seems in order., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)

Background: The synovial fluid test for alpha defensin has been reported to have an excellent performance in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the lateral flow test for synovial fluid alpha defensin by using the methods of a formal diagnostic accuracy study and to compare its performance with that of the laboratory-based alpha defensin test for PJI., Methods: We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study of the index lateral flow immunoassay for synovial fluid alpha defensin relative to the reference 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) multicriteria definition of PJI. The study included a prospective multicenter cohort of outpatients with a failed hip or knee arthroplasty and a supplemental control cohort of fresh synovial fluid specimens submitted by physicians for diagnostic PJI testing., Results: Among 57 patients with PJI and 248 patients without PJI in the overall prospective patient cohort, the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test were 89.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5% to 96.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.2% to 97.2%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 94.3% (95% CI: 84.3% to 98.8%) after exclusion of 17 patients with grossly bloody aspirates (>1 million red blood cells/µL). Among the supplemental control cohort of fresh synovial fluid samples, including 65 samples from patients with PJI and 397 from patients without PJI, the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test were 98.5% (95% CI: 91.7% to 100.0%) and 98.2% (95% CI: 96.4% to 99.3%), respectively. A comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test with those of the alpha defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the combined cohort did not demonstrate a significant difference in sensitivity (94.3% [95% CI: 88.5% to 97.7%] compared with 93.0% [95% CI: 87.1% to 96.7%]) or specificity (96.9% [95% CI: 95.3% to 98.1%] compared with 97.8% [95% CI: 96.4% to 98.8%]) (both p > 0.05)., Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate the solid diagnostic performance of the alpha defensin test and have resulted in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization of the lateral-flow test with an intended use as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of PJI., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The accuracy study was sponsored by Zimmer Biomet (Warsaw, Indiana), manufacturers of the index test. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work (including employment with Zimmer Biomet); “yes” to indicate that the author had a patent and/or copyright, planned, pending, or issued, broadly relevant to this work; and “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work (including with Zimmer Biomet) (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G191)., (Copyright © 2020 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the early postoperative period remains a challenge. Although studies have established that serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and synovial markers may be useful, recent studies have suggested that the current thresholds used may lack sensitivity. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of serum CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial fluid white blood-cell (WBC) count, and polymorphonuclear neutrophil (PMN) percentage in the diagnosis of acute postoperative PJI and to identify the optimal threshold., Methods: This multicenter study included patients who were investigated for possible PJI within 90 days of an index arthroplasty. This study included 197 patients from 4 institutions who underwent total joint arthroplasty from 2000 to 2017. Of these patients, 123 were confirmed to have PJI, and 74 were ruled out as not having PJI (non-infected group). Analyses of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve were performed to determine the value of each test and optimal cutoff values., Results: The optimal cutoff value was 6,130 cells/μL for synovial fluid WBC count (91% sensitivity and 83% specificity), 39.8 mg/L for serum CRP (91% sensitivity and 87% specificity), 39.5 mm/hr for ESR (76% sensitivity and 67% specificity), and 79.5% for PMN percentage (95% sensitivity and 59% specificity). Reducing the acute period from 90 days to 30 days or 45 days made little difference in most threshold values. However, the optimal cutoff for synovial fluid WBC count was almost twice as high (10,170 cells/μL) when using a 30-day definition instead of a 90-day definition., Conclusions: The calculated cutoffs in our study were substantially lower than the thresholds used by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The calculated values of this study should be used, as previous cutoffs may be too high and lack sensitivity. In addition, it appears that the threshold values, at least for some of the tests, change as the duration since the index arthroplasty lengthens. A continuum of threshold values that is dependent on the number of days since the index arthroplasty may need to be used for the diagnosis of acute PJI., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Male patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty have a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared with female patients. The exact reason for this finding is not well known. This study aimed to determine if patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are at increased risk of PJI., Methods: A total of 12,902 male patients who underwent primary or revision total joint arthroplasty from January 2006 to April 2017 were retrospectively identified. The mean patient age was 62.47 years and the mean patient body mass index was 30.1 kg/m. The majority of patients were Caucasian or African American. Most surgical procedures involved the hip joints (57.8%) and were primary arthroplasties (86%). Of these patients, 386 (3%) had symptomatic BPH. Among this group, 250 patients with symptomatic BPH were identified and were matched in an approximate 1:3 ratio with 708 control patients. Using the International Consensus Meeting criteria, patients who developed PJI were identified., Results: The PJI rate was 7.9% in the symptomatic BPH group and 2.8% in the control group. Multivariate regression analysis in unmatched groups showed that symptomatic BPH was a strong independent risk factor for PJI. After matching for variables related to outcomes, symptomatic BPH remained a significant risk factor for PJI (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic BPH had a higher risk of PJI compared with the control patients. This may partly explain the higher rate of PJI that is seen in male patients., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The article focuses on the aspects of using cemented or uncemented prosthesis concerning the development of surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Topics discussed include role of hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty in minimizing the development of infections, use of antibiotics along with cemented prosthesis to reduce PJI, and aspects of using antibiotic powder in wound during TJA.

Copyright of Acta Ortopédica Mexicana is the property of Sociedad Mexicana de Ortopedia, AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)