In 10% of the presumed aseptic hip or knee revisions, a low-grade infection is unexpectedly diagnosed based on the tissue samples taken during revision. Extended antimicrobial prophylaxis can possibly reduce the failure rate in cases of unexpected PJI, because the prophylaxis can be considered as early empiric treatment. In this randomized controlled study we analysed whether extended antimicrobial prophylaxis compared to a single dose is beneficial to improve the outcome of treatment in unexpected PJI in revision arthroplasty. This study was nested in a randomized clinical trial comparing single-dose cefazolin with prolonged prophylaxis (15 doses of cefazolin over 5 days) for revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. For this analysis, patients were included if an unsuspected PJI (defined as ≥2 positive intraoperative tissue samples with the same microorganism) was diagnosed. PJI treatment consisted of 12 weeks of a rifampicin-based regimen in Staphylococcal PJI, without removal of the prosthesis. We examined Infection characteristics and success of treatment after one year, defined as the absence of signs or treatment for PJI during follow-up.Aim
Method
To date, the value of culture results after a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for early (suspected) prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as risk indicators in terms of prosthesis retention is not clear. At one year follow-up, the relative risk of prosthesis removal was determined for culture-positive and culture-negative DAIRs after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. The secondary aim was to explore differences in patient characteristics, infection characteristics and outcomes between these two groups. A retrospective regional registry study was performed in a group of 359 patients (positive cultures: n = 299, negative cultures n = 60) undergoing DAIR for high suspicion of early PJI in the period from 2014 to 2019. Differences in patient characteristics, deceased patients and number of subsequent DAIRs between the positive and negative DAIR groups were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney, Pearson's Chi-square tests and Fisher's Exact tests.Aim
Methods
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication of total joint arthroplasty of hip (THA) or knee (TKA). Debridement, antibiotic treatment, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective treatment of early PJI. In the Netherlands, cefazolin resistance in early PJI after primary arthroplasty is low. Little is known about causative micro-organisms and resistance patterns in PJI after revision arthroplasty. No recommendations for empirical treatment are described in the current guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics of PJI after revision arthroplasty and to evaluate whether the used empirical treatment regimens are adequate, based on microbiology data. In this retrospective study we included patients with early PJI after aseptic revision of THA or TKA, treated with DAIR between 2012 and 2020. Success rate was defined as implant retention and no persistent or recurrent infection during one year follow-up.Aim
Method
National Joint Replacement Registries, which are important sources for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) data, report an average PJI incidence ranging from 0.5 to 2.0%. Unfortunately, national registries including the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), are not specifically designed to register PJI. In the Netherlands, the LROI is a nationwide population-based registry with an overall completeness of more than 95%.3 To ensure usability and reliability of PJI data from the LROI, it is important to evaluate the quality and completeness of these data. From 2013 onwards, eight hospitals in the South-East of the Netherlands, collected their PJI data in a detailed regional infection cohort (RIC), specifically designed for this purpose. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and completeness of PJI registration (hip and knee arthroplasty) in the LROI, by comparing the LROI with the RIC. All patients registered with an acute PJI in the RIC between 2014–2018 were selected for the study and were matched with the LROI. According to the Workgroup of American Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), an acute PJI was defined as at least two phenotypically identical pathogens, isolated in cultures from at least two separate tissues, obtained from the affected peri-prosthetic tissue during the DAIR treatment (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention). Only PJI occurring within 90 days after primary hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The LROI data and completeness was based on the entered procedures and documented reason for revision infection, which was not specially based on the MSIS criteria. After checks on missing and incorrectly data, the completeness of registration in the LROI was calculated by comparing the number of registrations in the LROI with data from the RIC (gold standard).Aim
Method
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of prosthetic joint implantation, with an estimated incidence of 2.18%. Most frequently used treatment strategy for PJI is a two-stage revision procedure. However there are specific patients with a new or persisting infection after primary or revision surgery where further surgical treatment is not attractive. This may be because of medical or local surgical conditions, or patient's refusal to undergo (further) surgical therapy. For these patients suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) may be an alternative treatment. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical and radiological outcome of patients with a PJI of a hip arthroplasty, treated with SAT. Twenty-four patients with a hip arthroplasty treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy for PJI between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 were included. All patients had a proven prosthetic joint infection, either by ≥2 intraoperative cultures or joint aspiration. SAT was defined as treatment with antibiotic therapy for more than three months. Most used antibiotics were doxycycline in 15 patients and cotrimoxazole in six patients. Patients were supposed to have a successful outcome when their prosthesis remained in situ and they had no relapse or new infection. Suppressive antibiotic therapy was considered successful in 15 (62.5%) patients with a mean follow-up of 20.6 months. Two patients (8.3%) had to stop the antibiotic therapy due to adverse effects. The mean duration of the SAT was 20.4 months (range 0.92–92.65 months). Mean modified Oxford hip score of the successfully treated patients at the latest follow up was 35 (range 16–49) and mean Harris hip score 71 (range 40–93). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) was 16 (range 0–70) in rest, 32 (range 0–85) during exercise and 65 (range 10–100) for satisfaction. Of the 9 patients with an unsuccessful outcome, there was a radiological loosening of the cup in 4 patients. In the group of 15 patients that were considered successful, 2 patients had a radiological loosening of the cup and one patient loosening of the stem. Suppressive antibiotic therapy can be an attractive alternative treatment in selected patients with a prosthetic joint infection of a hip arthroplasty who cannot or will not undergo (further) surgical therapy. Further research with a larger number of patients is required. Also the optimal dosage and duration of suppressive antibiotic therapy and possible resistance to the antibiotic therapy is unknown.
This retrospective study evaluates the outcome of patients with a late infection of a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) treated with two-stage revision with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle. Operation reports of all two stage revision performed in our clinic between 2009 and 2013 were reviewed (249 patients). Patients in which femoral cement mantle was retained during surgery were included (10 patients). The average age at the first stage revision procedure was 61.5 years (range 38–80). The mean follow-up period was 26 months (range 5 to 54 months). Clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Successful treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was achieved in six out of 10 patients; four patients showed no signs of infection during follow-up. Two of these patients received three months of antibiotic treatment after second stage, because of positive cultures at second stage. The other two successfully treated patients showed recurrence of PJI one week after second stage. Debridement with retention of prosthesis (DAIR) was performed. Newly cultured microorganisms were successfully treated with 3 months of antibiotics. The other four patients were considered to be failures; in three patients, the femoral cement mantle was removed after the first stage due to recurrent infection. The other failure showed a recurrent PJI after second stage. Despite DAIR and three months of antibiotic treatment, this patient is treated with suppressive antibiotics until latest follow-up. Based on this study, results in managing an infected THA with cement-within-cement revision are disappointing. Therefore, more research is required to determine which patients are appropriate for cement-within-cement revision.
