Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 97 patients who underwent 100 two-stage revisions (hip: 39, knee: 61). Synovial fluid samples were assessed for calprotectin and alpha-defensin levels. ICM 2018 and EBJIS 2021 were applied to all patients undergoing 2nd stage revision. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden Index were utilized to determine optimal cut-off values, and correlations between biomarkers were evaluated. The microbiological spectrum was analyzed at 2nd stage and re-revision surgery.

Method

In this retrospective propensity-score (PS) matched cohort-study we compared the re-revision rate and the microbiological spectrum in rTHA and rTKA treated with (AB-Group; n=70) and without (non-AB-Group; n=70) antibiotic treatment in patients with UPIC. Baseline covariates for PS-matching were type of revision, sex, Body-Mass-Index, age, Surgical-Site-Infection-Score, American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists-Classification, serum C-reactive-protein.

All patients received routine antibiotic prophylaxis, but empiric AB treatment was started only in patients in the AB-Group. Post-operative treatment was decided on an individual basis according to the preference of the surgeon and the infectious disease specialist for a minimum duration of two weeks. In total, 90 rTHA (45 AB-Group, 45 in non-AB-Group) patients with UPICs and 50 rTKA (25 AB-Group, 25 in non-AB-Group) were included in the study. There was no significant variation in patient demographics.

Methods

Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures.

Methods

We analysed 366 US-examinations from 340 patients prior to revision THA. Selected cases were categorized into clearly infected, non-infected and inconclusive, according to the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 Criteria. If US-determined fluid film was <1mm, no aspiration was performed based on our institutional standard protocol. Patients were grouped into no-aspiration (144/366;[39.3%]), dry-tap (21/366;[5.7%]) and a successful-tap (201/366;[54.9%]). The microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns were determined and differences were compared between pre- and intraoperative results.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively maintained institutional arthroplasty registry. Between 2011 and 2020 we performed presumably aseptic rTHA (n=939) and rTKA (n= 1,058). Clinical outcome, re-revision rates and causes as well as the microbiological spectrum were evaluated.

Method

Fifty-eight native synovial fluid samples were recovered from 49 patients (female n=26; male =23) who underwent one or multiple septic or aseptic revision arthroplasties of the hip (n=12) and knee (n=46). The JI panel methodology was used either on specimens freshly collected (n=6) or stored at −80°C in our Musculoskeletal Biobank (n=52). The JI panel performance was evaluated by comparison with culture reference methods. Patient's medical records were retrieved from our institutional arthroplasty registry as well as our prospectively maintained PJI infection database.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis of our prospectively maintained biobank, we evaluated synovial AD levels from 143 rTKAs. The 2018-Musculoskeletal Infection Society score (MSIS) was used to define our study groups. Overall, 20 rTKA with UPIC with a minimum of one positive intraoperative culture with MSIS 2-≥6 and 14 UNIC samples with MSIS≥6 were compared to 34 septic culture-positive samples (MSIS ≥6) and 75 aseptic culture-negative (MSIS 0–1) rTKAs. Moreover, we compared the performance of both AD-lateral-flow-assay (ADLF) and an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent-assay (ELISA) to test the presence of AD in native and centrifuged synovial fluid. Concentration of AD determined by ELISA and ADLF methods, as well as microbiological, and histopathological results, serum and synovial parameters along with demographic factors were considered.

Method

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained single center spine infection database was performed with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Between 01/2011 and 12/2018, 103 patients underwent 248 revision surgeries for the treatment of PSII. Overall, 20 patients (6 male/14 female) underwent 82 revisions for PSII (median 3; range 2–12). There were 55/82 (67.1%) procedures with a positive microbiological result. Microbiological analysis was performed on tissue and implant sonication fluid. Changes in microbial spectrum and antibiotic resistance pattern between surgeries were evaluated using Chi-Square and Fisher's exact test.