Aims

The best marker for assessing glycaemic control prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of fructosamine compared with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in predicting early complications following TKA, and to determine the threshold above which the risk of complications increased markedly.

Introduction

Despite recent advances in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection(PJI), identifying the infecting organism continues to be a challenge, with up to a third of PJIs reported to have negative cultures. Current molecular techniques have thus far been unable to replace culture as the gold standard for isolation of the infecting pathogen. Next- generation sequencing(NGS) is a well-established technique for comprehensively sequencing the entire pathogen DNA in a given sample and has recently gained much attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of NGS in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with PJI.

Introduction

The use of irrigation solution during surgical procedures is a common and effective practice in reduction of bioburden and the risk of subsequent infection. The optimal irrigation solution to accomplish this feat remains unknown. Many surgeons commonly add topical antibiotics to irrigation solutions assuming this has topical effect and eliminates bacteria. The latter reasoning has never been proven. In fact a few prior studies suggest addition of antibiotics to irrigation solution confers no added benefit. Furthermore, this practice adds to cost, has the potential for anaphylactic reactions, and may also contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We therefore sought to compare the antimicrobial efficacy and cytotoxicity of irrigation solution containing polymyxin-bacitracin versus other commonly used irrigation solutions.

Background

Recent reports demonstrate that Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) facilitates pathogen identification in the context of culture-negative PJI; however the clinical relevance of the polymicrobial genomic signal often generated remains unknown. This study was conceived to explore: (1) the ability of NGS to identify pathogens in culture-negative PJI; and (2) determine whether organisms detected by NGS, as part of a prospective observational study, had any role in later failure of patients undergoing surgical treatment for PJI.

Aim

Late acute prosthetic joint infections (PJI) treated with surgical debridement and implant retention (DAIR) have a high failure rate. The aim of our study was to evaluate treatment outcome in late acute PJIs treated with DAIR versus implant removal.

Aim

A two-stage exchange of an infected prosthetic joint (PJI) is considered the most effective surgical treatment of chronic PJIs, particularly in North America. However, reinfection rates are unacceptably high (10–20%). This could be the consequence of a persistent infection or a new infection introduced during the first or second stage of the exchange arthroplasty. We aimed to determine: i) the prevalence of positive cultures at reimplantation, ii) whether there is an association between positive cultures at reimplantation and reinfection during follow-up, and iii) if there is a microbiological correlation between primary infections, reimplantations and reinfections.

Aim

Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) is the recommended treatment for all acute prosthetic joint infections (PJI). However, the efficacy of DAIR and identification of risk factors for failure in patients with late acute PJI, is not well described.

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine the association between postoperative glycaemic variability and adverse outcomes following orthopaedic surgery.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). According to registry-based studies, some bearing couples are associated with an increased risk of PJI. The recent International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection stated that metal-on-metal (MOM) bearing surface appeared to be associated with a higher incidence of PJI. Based on emerging reports, the incidence of PJI appears to be different among different bearing surfaces. We conducted a multi-institutional study attempting to study this exact issue. The purpose of the study was to determine whether there was any difference in the incidence of PJI in two commonly used bearing couples (metal- on-polyethylene versus ceramic-on-polyethylene).

Based on a retrospective multi-institutional query all patients who received primary THA with MOP or COP bearing surfaces performed during 2005–2009 in two high-volume arthroplasty centers were identified. Demographic factors, comorbidities, length of hospital stay, complications and other relevant information were extracted. PJI was defined based on the MSIS (International Consensus) criteria. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine whether bearing coupling was independently correlated with PJI.

In our data, 25/2,921 (0.9%) patients with MOP and 11/2,643 (0.4%) patients with COP developed PJI. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.01). After the multivariate analysis, controlling for potential confounders (age, body mass index and length of hospital stay, Charlson comorbidity index), MOP bearing surface was found to be an independent factor correlating with higher incidence of PJI (odds ratio: 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.02–6.54, p=0.04).

The finding of this study, and others from centers in Europe, suggest that the bearing surface may have an influence on the incidence of PJI. Although, we had originally thought that ceramic bearing surfaces may be used in younger and healthier patients, the multivariate analyses that controlled for all these variables confirms that use of metal femoral head is an independent risk factor for development of PJI. The finding of this study is compelling and begs for future basic science mechanistic investigations.

Historical perspective: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) with modular exchange has historically been the recommended treatment for acute post-operative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and acute hematogenous PJI. The theory supporting this practice was that because the bacterial glycocalyx had not yet formed by these early time points, by simply debriding the intra-articular bacterial load and exchanging the modular parts, one could potentially eradicate the infection, retain the prior components, and minimise morbidity to the patient. More recently, literature is coming out suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case.

The vast majority of published research on the outcomes following I&D for treatment of PJI has focused on either cohorts of total knee arthroplasty patients or combined cohorts of total hip and knee patients. For this reason, it is difficult to tease out the differential success rate of periprosthetic hip vs. knee infections. Sherrell et al. performed a systematic review of the existing literature and created a table detailing the failure rates for various published articles on I&D for periprosthetic TKA infection.

Since it is the glycocalyx that has been thought to be the reason for treatment failure of many cases of PJI treated with I&D, many authors have implicated staphylococcal species as a predictor of a negative outcome with failure rates ranging from 30–35%. Methicillin resistant organisms have been shown to be particularly difficult to eradicate with an isolated I&D, with a 72–84% failure rate at 2 year follow-up. Interestingly, a recent study by Odum et al. suggests that neither the infecting microbe, nor the antibiotic resistance profile of the organism, as has been classically thought, actually predicts success of I&D.

Previous reports have indicated that the ability of I&D to control infection is related to the duration of symptoms and its timing relative to the index surgery. However, more recent literature is coming out to support the contrary. Koyonos et al. reviewed the outcomes of a series of 138 cases of PJI treated with I&D based on acuity of infection and concluded that an I&D has a limited role in controlling PJI regardless of acuity.

Intuitively, the physical health of the host/patient should influence the success of I&D for treatment of PJI. Several authors have shown that an immunocompromised state is a predictor of treatment failure. Furthermore, Azzam et al. reported that patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, a proxy of severity of medical comorbidities, had a significantly higher failure rate.

Although potentially appealing due to relative ease of execution and minimal surgical morbidity, the ability to successfully eradicate infection with an arthroscopic procedure may be compromised. Given the inability to perform a radical surgical debridement, nor exchange modular components, arthroscopic debridement should be used with extreme reservation in any case of PJI, regardless of the host, nature of the infecting organism, or acuity of infection.

I&D as a conservative, less morbid alternative to two-stage exchange - There is a growing body of literature to suggest that an I&D with modular component exchange may not be the benign, less morbid alternative to the ‘gold standard’ two-stage exchange arthroplasty. In fact, Fehring et al. has reported that the success of a two-stage antibiotic spacer exchange arthroplasty may be compromised by an initial I&D. They found that patients who were initially treated with an I&D only had a 66% chance of eradicating infection following a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, in contrast to historical reports of 80–90% success.

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.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a well-established technique for amplification and sequencing of DNA and has recently gained much attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of NGS in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

In this prospective study samples were collected from 78 revision total hip arthroplasties. Synovial fluid, deep tissue and swabs were obtained at the time of surgery and shipped to the laboratory for NGS analysis. Deep tissue specimens were also sent to the institutional lab for culture. PJI was diagnosed using the Musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) definition of PJI.

Thirty-four revisions were considered infected; culture was positive in 25 of these (25/34, 73.5%), while NGS was positive in 26 (26/34, 76.4%). Among the positive cultures, complete concordance between NGS and culture in 21 cases (21/25, 84.0%). 4 cases were discordant. Among these cases, 3 cases were culture-positive and NGS-negative, while 1 was both positive on NGS and culture for disparate organisms. Among the 9 cases of culture-negative PJI(CN-PJI), NGS was able to identify an organism in 4 cases (4/9, 44.4%). The remaining 5 cases were negative on both NGS and culture (5/9, 55.6%). Forty-four revisions were considered to be aseptic; NGS exclusively identified microbes in 7 of 44 “aseptic” revisions (15.9%) and culture exclusively isolated an organism in 3 of 44 cases (6.8%). Both NGS and culture were positive in 1 of case however the result was discordant. The remaining cases (33/44, 75.0%) were both NGS and culture negative. NGS detected several organisms in most positive samples, with a greater number of organisms detected in aseptic compared to septic cases (7 vs. 3.7, respectively).

NGS may be a promising technique for identifying the infecting organism in PJI. Our findings suggest that some cases of PJI may be polymicrobial that escape detection using conventional culture.

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of two agents, aspirin and warfarin, for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SBTKA), and to elucidate the risk of VTE conferred by this procedure compared with unilateral TKA (UTKA).

Aim

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a real challenge in some patients. Batteries of tests are available to reach this diagnosis. It is unknown if blood cultures have any role in diagnosis of PJI. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether blood cultures, taken in a group of patients with PJI, was useful in identifying the infecting pathogen.

The number of arthroplasties being performed increases each year. Patients undergoing an arthroplasty are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and appropriate prophylaxis has been recommended. However, the optimal protocol and the best agent to minimise VTE under these circumstances are not known. Although many agents may be used, there is a difference in their efficacy and the risk of bleeding. Thus, the selection of a particular agent relies on the balance between the desire to minimise VTE and the attempt to reduce the risk of bleeding, with its undesirable, and occasionally fatal, consequences.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is an agent for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty. Many studies have shown its efficacy in minimising VTE under these circumstances. It is inexpensive and well-tolerated, and its use does not require routine blood tests. It is also a ‘milder’ agent and unlikely to result in haematoma formation, which may increase both the risk of infection and the need for further surgery. Aspirin is also unlikely to result in persistent wound drainage, which has been shown to be associated with the use of agents such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and other more aggressive agents.

The main objective of this review was to summarise the current evidence relating to the efficacy of aspirin as a VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty, and to address some of the common questions about its use.

There is convincing evidence that, taking all factors into account, aspirin is an effective, inexpensive, and safe form of VTE following arthroplasty in patients without a major risk factor for VTE, such as previous VTE.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1420–30.

The burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to rise and the management of this dreaded complication continues to pose challenges to the orthopaedic community. Dr Buchholz from the Endo Klinik has been credited for reporting the initial observation that addition of antibiotic to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement lead to better ability to deliver higher concentrations of antibiotic to the joint milieu and avoid administration of high doses of systemic antibiotics with potential for systemic toxicity.

Addition of antibiotics to PMMA cement has continued to be an important aspect of managing patients with chronic PJI. The rationale for this practice is that higher doses of local antibiotics can be reached without placing the patients at risk of systemic toxicity. Whether a one-stage or a two-stage exchange arthroplasty is being performed, antibiotics that can withstand the exothermic reaction of PMMA and are able to elude from cement are added at various doses to the PMMA for later delivery. Although this practice continues to be almost universal, there are a few unknowns. First of all, a recent study raised a valid question regarding this practice. Though intuitively logical, addition of antibiotics to PMMA spacers has not been scrutinised by any level 1 study and hence one is not able to prove that this practice does indeed accomplish its intended objectives of reducing recurrence or persistence of infection. Orthopaedic community is advised to seek avenues to generate this much-needed evidence. The other main unknown is how much, and in some instances which antibiotic, needs to be added to the PMMA cement. Some authorities have declared that antibiotics can be added at high doses, with an average total dose of 10.5 g of vancomycin (range, 3–16 g) and 12.5 g of gentamicin (range, 3.6–19.2 g) in one study, to PMMA cement without the fear of systemic toxicity.

In recent years, renal toxicity and other systemic adverse effects have been attributed to addition of high doses of antibiotics to cement. I have personally witnessed such adverse reactions in a few patients. Although initially I was inclined to “blame” the concurrent administration of systemic antibiotics for the renal toxicity that patients developed following insertion of spacer, selective nephrotoxicity (i.e. reaction to aminoglycoside that was only present in the spacer and not systemically administered) and resolution of the nephrotoxicity upon removal of antibiotic spacer, convinced me that our nephrology colleagues have a valid reason to be concerned about addition of high doses of antibiotics to PMMA spacers.

What has become clear is that high viscosity cements containing MA-MMA copolymers have been shown to have better antibiotic elution profiles than other PMMA formulations. So when fashioning a spacer in the operating room the surgeon needs to be aware of the differences in elution profile of antibiotics from PMMA and individualise the dose of antibiotics being added to spacer based on the type and viscosity of cement being used and the renal status of the patient. Thus, systemic toxicity caused by addition of antibiotics to cement spacer appears to be a real issue in some circumstances and this needs to be born in mind when managing patients with PJI.

There are numerous other issues related to the use of antibiotic cement spacers. In the hip, the lack of adequate offset and limited portfolio of products result in laxity in the soft tissue and subsequent dislocation of the hip. In addition, the dose and type of antibiotic in the premanufactured spacers, at least in the US, are inadequate to lead to a substantial delivery of antibiotics in the local tissues. Because of these issues, I prefer to fabricate “customised” spacers for each patient that I operate on.

Revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is being performed with increasing frequency. However, outcomes of repeated revisions have been rarely reported in the literature, especially for severe defects. Cup revision can be a highly complex operation depending on the bone defect. In acetabular defects like Paprosky types 1 and 2 porous cementless cups maybe fixed with screws give good results. Modern trabecular metal designs improve these good results. Allografts are useful for filling cavitary defects. In acetabular defects Paprosky types 3A and 3B, impacted morselised allografts with a cemented cup technique produce good results. Difficult cases with pelvic discontinuity require reconstruction of the acetabulum with acetabular plates or large cup-cages to solve these difficult problems. However, there is still no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing hips with bone loss. Although the introduction of ultraporous metals has significantly increased the surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised hips, there remain some that cannot be managed readily using cups, augments, or cages. In such situations custom acetabular components may be required. Individual implants represent yet another tool for the reconstructive surgeon. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss. Ensuring long-term outcome mechanical stability has a greater impact than restoring an ideal center of rotation.

We have done so far 15 3D Printed Individual Implants. All of them where Paprosky Type 3B defects, 10 with a additional pelvis discontinuity. The mean follow-up is 18 months. All implanted devices are still in place, no infection, no loosening.

However, despite our consecutive case series, there are no mid- to long-term results available so far. Re-revision for failed revision THA acetabular components is a technically very challenging condition.

The 3D Printed Individual Implants have a lot of advantages, like excellent surgical planning and a very simple technique (operative time, blood loss, instruments). They are a very stable construct for extensive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) should be individualised in order to maximise the efficacy of prophylactic measures while avoiding the adverse events associated with the use of anticoagulants. At our institution, we have developed a scoring model using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, which is validated against our institutional data, to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups for VTE. Low-risk patients are placed on aspirin 81 mg twice daily for four weeks post-operatively, and high-risk patients are placed on either a Vitamin K antagonist (warfarin), low molecular weight heparin, or other oral anticoagulants for four weeks post-operatively. All patients receive sequential pneumatic compression devices post-operatively, and patients are mobilised with physical therapy on the day of surgery. Patients who have a history of peptic ulcer disease or allergy to aspirin are also considered for other types of anticoagulation following surgery.

Risk Stratification Criteria

Major comorbid risk factors utilised in our risk stratification model include history of hypercoagulability or previous VTE, active cancer or history of non-cutaneous malignancy, history of stroke, and pulmonary hypertension. We consider patients with any of these risk factors at elevated risk of VTE and therefore candidates for formal anticoagulation.

Other minor risk factors include older age, bilateral surgery compared with unilateral, inflammatory bowel disease, varicose veins, obstructive sleep apnea, and history of myocardial infarction, myeloproliferative disorders, and congestive heart failure. Each minor criterion is associated with a score. The cumulative score is compared with a defined threshold and the score that surpasses the threshold indicates that the patient should receive post-operative anticoagulation. To facilitate the use of this scoring system, an iOS mobile application (VTEstimator) has been developed and can be downloaded from the app store.

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodelling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient.

Generally, the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2–5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, and insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weightbearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches.

Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%, while survivorship for revision as aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported about similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition, a long-term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years.

Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines, if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in the United States.

Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):3–10.