Aims. This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes associated with culture-negative limb osteomyelitis patients. Methods. A total of 1,047 limb osteomyelitis patients aged 18 years or older who underwent debridement and intraoperative culture at our clinic centre from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020 were included. Patient characteristics, infection eradication, and complications were analyzed between culture-negative and culture-positive cohorts. Results. Of these patients, 264 (25.2%) had negative cultures. Patients with a culture-negative compared with a culture-positive status were more likely to have the following characteristics: younger age (≤ 40 years) (113/264 (42.8%) vs 257/783 (32.8%); p = 0.004), a haematogenous aetiology (75/264 (28.4%) vs 150/783 (19.2%); p = 0.002), Cierny-Mader host A (79/264 (29.9%) vs 142/783 (18.1%); p < 0.001), antibiotic use before sampling (34/264 (12.9%) vs 41/783 (5.2%); p＜0.001), fewer taken samples (n＜3) (48/264 (18.2%) vs 60/783 (7.7%); p＜0.001), and less frequent presentation with a sinus (156/264 (59.1%) vs 665/783 (84.9%); p < 0.001). After initial treatments of first-debridement and antimicrobial, infection eradication was inferior in culture-positive osteomyelitis patients, with a 2.24-fold increase (odds ratio 2.24 (95% confidence interval 1.42 to 3.52)) in the redebridement rate following multivariate analysis. No statistically significant differences were found in long-term recurrence and complications within the two-year follow-up. Conclusion. We identified several factors being associated with the culture-negative result in osteomyelitis patients. In addition, the data also indicate that culture negativity is a positive prognostic factor in early infection eradication. These results constitute the basis of optimizing clinical management and patient consultations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):720–727

Aims. In the absence of an identified organism, single-stage revision is contraindicated in prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, no studies have examined the use of intra-articular antibiotics in combination with single-stage revision in these cases. In this study, we present the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion for treating culture-negative (CN) PJI. Methods. A retrospective analysis between 2009 and 2016 included 51 patients with CN PJI who underwent single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion; these were compared with 192 culture-positive (CP) patients. CN patients were treated according to a protocol including intravenous vancomycin and a direct intra-articular infusion of imipenem and vancomycin alternately used in the morning and afternoon. In the CP patients, pathogen-sensitive intravenous (IV) antibiotics were administered for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), and for resistant cases, additional intra-articular antibiotics were used. The infection healing rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score were compared between CN and CP groups. Results. Of 51 CN patients, 46 (90.2%) required no additional medical treatment for recurrent infection at a mean of 53.2 months (24 to 72) of follow-up. Impaired kidney function occurred in two patients, and one patient had a local skin rash. No significant difference in the infection control rate was observed between CN and CP PJIs (90.2% (46/51) versus 94.3% (181/192); p = 0.297). The HHS of the CN group showed no substantial difference from that of CP cases (79 versus 81; p = 0.359). However, the CN group showed a mean HSS inferior to that of the CP group (76 versus 80; p = 0.027). Conclusion. Single-stage revision with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion can be effective in treating CN PJI, and can achieve an infection control rate similar to that in CP patients. However, in view of systemic toxicity, local adverse reactions, and higher costs, additional strong evidence is needed to verify these treatment regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):336–344

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) when adequate methods of culture are used, and to evaluate the outcome in patients who were treated with antibiotics for a culture-negative PJI compared with those in whom antibiotics were withheld. Methods. A multicentre observational study was undertaken: 1,553 acute and 1,556 chronic PJIs, diagnosed between 2013 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. Culture-negative PJIs were diagnosed according to the Muskuloskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), International Consensus Meeting (ICM), and European Bone and Joint Society (EBJIS) definitions. The primary outcome was recurrent infection, and the secondary outcome was removal of the prosthetic components for any indication, both during a follow-up period of two years. Results. None of the acute PJIs and 70 of the chronic PJIs (4.7%) were culture-negative; a total of 36 culture-negative PJIs (51%) were treated with antibiotics, particularly those with histological signs of infection. After two years of follow-up, no recurrent infections occurred in patients in whom antibiotics were withheld. The requirement for removal of the components for any indication during follow-up was not significantly different in those who received antibiotics compared with those in whom antibiotics were withheld (7.1% vs 2.9%; p = 0.431). Conclusion. When adequate methods of culture are used, the incidence of culture-negative PJIs is low. In patients with culture-negative PJI, antibiotic treatment can probably be withheld if there are no histological signs of infection. In all other patients, diagnostic efforts should be made to identify the causative microorganism by means of serology or molecular techniques. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):183–188

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection can be difficult due to the high rate of culture-negative infections. The aim of this study was to assess the use of next-generation sequencing for detecting organisms in synovial fluid. Materials and Methods. In this prospective, single-blinded study, 86 anonymized samples of synovial fluid were obtained from patients undergoing aspiration of the hip or knee as part of the investigation of a periprosthetic infection. A panel of synovial fluid tests, including levels of C-reactive protein, human neutrophil elastase, total neutrophil count, alpha-defensin, and culture were performed prior to next-generation sequencing. Results. Of these 86 samples, 30 were alpha-defensin-positive and culture-positive (Group I), 24 were alpha-defensin-positive and culture-negative (Group II) and 32 were alpha-defensin-negative and culture-negative (Group III). Next-generation sequencing was concordant with 25 results for Group I. In four of these, it detected antibiotic resistant bacteria whereas culture did not. In another four samples with relatively low levels of inflammatory biomarkers, culture was positive but next-generation sequencing was negative. A total of ten samples had a positive next-generation sequencing result and a negative culture. In five of these, alpha-defensin was positive and the levels of inflammatory markers were high. In the other five, alpha-defensin was negative and the levels of inflammatory markers were low. While next-generation sequencing detected several organisms in each sample, in most samples with a higher probability of infection, there was a predominant organism present, while in those presumed not to be infected, many organisms were identified with no predominant organism. Conclusion. Pathogens causing periprosthetic infection in both culture-positive and culture-negative samples of synovial fluid could be identified by next-generation sequencing. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:127–33

Aims. Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants. Patients and Methods. Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (. sd. 12.7; 20 to 79). Results. Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment. Conclusion. Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396–402

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking. Patients and Methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment for 50 consecutive culture-negative and 50 consecutive culture-positive patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for chronic infection with a minimum follow-up of five years. Results. There was no significant difference in the outcomes between the two groups of patients, with a similar rate of re-infection of 6%, five years post-operatively. Culture-negative PJIs were associated with older age, smoking, referral from elsewhere and pre-operative antibiotic treatment. The samples in the culture-negative patients were negative before the first stage (aspiration), during the first-stage (implant removal) and second-stage procedures (re-implantation). Conclusion. Adherence to strict protocols for selecting and treating culture-negative patients with a PJI using the same two-stage revision approach that we employ for complex culture-positive PJIs is important in order to achieve control of the infection in this difficult group of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;(1 Supple A)100-B:3–8

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of positive cultures during the second stage of a two-stage revision arthroplasty and to analyse the association between positive cultures and an infection-free outcome. Patients and Methods. This single-centre retrospective review of prospectively collected data included patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of either the hip or the knee between 2013 and 2015, who were treated using a standardised diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm with two-stage exchange. Failure of treatment was assessed according to a definition determined by a Delphi-based consensus. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure. The mean follow-up was 33 months (24 to 48). Results. A total of 163 two-stage revision arthroplasties involving 84 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 79 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were reviewed. In 27 patients (16.6%), ≥ 1 positive culture was identified at re-implantation and eight (29.6%) of these subsequently failed compared with 20 (14.7%) patients who were culture-negative. The same initially infecting organism was isolated at re-implantation in nine of 27 patients (33.3%). The organism causing re-infection in none of the patients was the same as that isolated at re-implantation. The risk of the failure of treatment was significantly higher in patients with a positive culture (odds ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 3.0; p = 0.049) and in patients with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 1.8; p = 0.001). Conclusion. Positive culture at re-implantation was independently associated with subsequent failure. Surgeons need to be aware of this association and should consider the medical optimisation of patients with severe comorbidities both before and during treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1490–5

Aims

Gram-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been poorly studied despite its rapidly increasing incidence. Treatment with one-stage revision using intra-articular (IA) infusion of antibiotics may offer a reasonable alternative with a distinct advantage of providing a means of delivering the drug in high concentrations. Carbapenems are regarded as the last line of defense against severe Gram-negative or polymicrobial infection. This study presents the results of one-stage revision using intra-articular carbapenem infusion for treating Gram-negative PJI, and analyzes the characteristics of bacteria distribution and drug sensitivity.

Aims

Despite numerous studies focusing on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. Metachronous PJIs are PJIs that can arise in the same or other artificial joints after a period of time, in patients who have previously had PJI.

Aims

Fungal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are rare, but their diagnosis and treatment are highly challenging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with fungal PJIs treated with two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty combined with prolonged antifungal therapy.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains an extremely challenging complication. We have focused on this issue more over the last decade than previously, but there are still many unanswered questions. We now have a workable definition that everyone should align to, but we need to continue to focus on identifying the organisms involved. Surgical strategies are evolving and care is becoming more patient-centred. There are some good studies under way. There are, however, still numerous problems to resolve, and the challenge of PJI remains a major one for the orthopaedic community. This annotation provides some up-to-date thoughts about where we are, and the way forward. There is still scope for plenty of research in this area.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1193–1195.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution.

Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1321–1326.

Aims

Large bone defects resulting from osteolysis, fractures, osteomyelitis, or metastases pose significant challenges in acetabular reconstruction for total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the survival and radiological outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction technique in patients at high risk of reconstruction failure (i.e. periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), poor bone stock, immunosuppressed patients), referred to as Hip Reconstruction In Situ with Screws and Cement (HiRISC). This involves a polyethylene liner embedded in cement-filled bone defects reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation.

Aims

The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.