Aims

Biofilm-related infection is a major complication that occurs in orthopaedic surgery. Various treatments are available but efficacy to eradicate infections varies significantly. A systematic review was performed to evaluate therapeutic interventions combating biofilm-related infections on in vivo animal models.

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has always been challenging. Recently, D-dimer has become a promising biomarker in diagnosing PJI. However, there is controversy regarding its diagnostic value. We aim to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in comparison to ESR and CRP. Methods. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2020 to identify articles reporting on the diagnostic value of D-dimer on PJI. Pooled analysis was conducted to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer, CRP, and ESR. Results. Six studies with 1,255 cases were included (374 PJI cases and 881 non-PJI cases). Overall D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.87) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86). Sub-group analysis by excluding patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders showed sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88). Serum D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90). Plasma D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73), specificity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.72). CRP showed sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.87). ESR showed sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.73), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). Conclusion. In patients without thrombosis or a hyper-coagulation disorder, D-dimer has a higher diagnostic value compared to CRP and ESR. In patients with the aforementioned conditions, D-dimer has higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to ESR and CRP. We do not recommend the use of serum D-dimer in patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders for diagnosing PJI. Serum D-dimer may perform better than plasma D-dimer. Further studies are needed to compare serum D-dimer and plasma D-dimer in arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):701–708

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).