Introduction. Pre-operative aspiration and culture is the gold standard for the diagnosis of peri-prosthetic infection. This study aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of culture of joint aspiration with or without saline re-aspiration in the event of a dry-tap. Patients/Materials & Methods. Retrospective analysis of 343 hip aspirations in patients deemed to have moderate-high risk of infection and ultimately proceeded to revision arthroplasty over 12 years at a large quaternary referral centre where pre-operative aspiration is routine. Results. Fluid was aspirated in 141(41%) cases and dry taps in which saline injection-re-aspiration was performed occurred in 202 (59%) cases. Overall sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic aspirate were 82% (74–88%) and 79% (74–84%) respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of saline injection-re-aspiration after dry tap were 79% (64–87%) and 86% (78–92%) compared to 84% (74–91%) and 74% (66–81%) for direct aspiration. Discussion. Pre-operative joint aspiration and culture is a sensitive and specific test for the confirmation of diagnosis in patients at a moderate to high risk of prosthetic joint infection. Culture of saline injection-re-aspiration also provides accurate diagnostic information in the event of a dry tap. Both methods allow susceptibility testing of relevant organisms and are therefore able to guide peri-operative and cement instilled antibiotic therapy. Conclusions. Culture of pre-operative joint aspirates provides sensitive and specific diagnostic information, including antimicrobial susceptibility results. Saline injection-re-aspiration is a useful additional technique in those patients in whom fluid cannot be aspirated

No single test is 100% sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Joint aspiration is currently the only preoperative investigation that can establish the identity of the infecting organism and its antibiotic susceptibilities. Frequently when attempting to aspirate a joint a ‘dry tap occurs as fluid cannot be aspirated. In this situation, normal saline may be injected into the joint and then reaspirated to provide fluid for culture. The aim of this study was to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of culture of joint aspiratie with or without saline reaspiration in the event of a dry tap. A retrospective analysis of 580 hip and knee aspirations in patients deemed to have moderate-high risk of infection and ultimately proceeded to revision arthroplasty over 12 years at a large quaternary referral centre where pre operative aspiration is routine. Fluid was aspirated in 313 (54%) cases and dry taps in which saline injection reaspiration was performed occurred in 267 (46%) cases. Overall sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic aspiration were 84% (78–89%) and 85% (81–88%) respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of saline injection-reaspiration after dry tap were 87% (79–82%) and 79% (72–84%) compared to 81% (71–88%) and 90% (85–93%) for direct aspiration. Pre operative joint aspiration and culture is a sensitive and specific test for the confirmation of diagnosis in patients at a moderate to high risk of prosthetic joint infection. Culture of saline injection-reaspiration also provides accurate diagnostic information in the event of a dry tap. Both methods allow susceptibility testing of relevant organisms and are therefore able to guide peri-operative and cement instilled antibiotic therapy. Culture of pre operative joint aspirates provides sensitive and specific diagnostic information including antimicrobial susceptibility results. Saline injection-reaspiration is a useful additional technique in those patients in whom fluid cannot be aspirated

Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time. In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected, and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to 14 days. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:77–83

Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care centre had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. 113 Patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, and cultures. Sixty-two of the 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum ESR and CRP were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid WBC, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a CT scan, and 3 (5%) an MRI. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI

Aims

One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision.

Aims

We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

To explore the effect of different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in two-stage revision for chronic hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

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.

Objectives

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI.

Aims

We hypothesised that the synovial white blood cell (WBC) count in patients with a late periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip would depend on the duration of a patient’s symptoms, and that the optimal diagnostic threshold would also depend on this period of time.

Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients.

The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection.

This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1450–2.

The differential diagnosis of the painful total hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or total hip) includes infection, failure of fixation (loosening), tendinitis, bursitis, synovitis, adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to cobalt-chromium alloys, and non-hip issues, such as spinal disorders, hernia, gynecologic, and other pelvic pain. Assuming that the hip is the source of pain, the first level question is prosthetic or non-prosthetic pain generator? The second level prosthetic question is septic or aseptic? The third level question (aseptic hips) is well-fixed or loose? ALTR is best diagnosed by cross-sectional imaging. Successful treatment is dependent on correct identification and elimination of the pain generator. Treatment recommendations for ALTR and taper corrosion are evolving.

Arthroscopy of the native hip is an established diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Its application in the symptomatic replaced hip is still being explored. We describe the use of arthroscopy of the hip in 24 symptomatic patients following total hip replacement, resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip and partial resurfacing (study group), and compared it with arthroscopy of the native hip in 24 patients (control group). A diagnosis was made or confirmed at arthroscopy in 23 of the study group and a therapeutic arthroscopic intervention resulted in relief of symptoms in ten of these. In a further seven patients it led to revision hip replacement. In contrast, arthroscopy in the control group was diagnostic in all 24 patients and the resulting arthroscopic therapeutic intervention provided symptomatic relief in 21.

The mean operative time in the study group (59.7 minutes (35 to 93)) was less than in the control group (71 minutes (40 to 100), p = 0.04) but the arthroscopic approach was more difficult in the arthroplasty group. We suggest that arthroscopy has a role in the management of patients with a symptomatic arthroplasty when other investigations have failed to provide a diagnosis.

We have carried out in 24 patients, a two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for infection with massive bone loss. We used a custom-made, antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis as an interim spacer. Fifteen patients had acetabular deficiencies, eight had segmental femoral bone loss and one had a combined defect.

There was no recurrence of infection at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 7). A total of 21 patients remained mobile in the interim period. The mean Merle D’Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 7.3 points before operation to 13.2 between stages and to 15.8 at the final follow-up. The allograft appeared to have incorporated into the host bone in all patients. Complications included two fractures and one dislocation of the cement prosthesis.

The use of a temporary spacer maintains the function of the joint between stages even when there is extensive loss of bone. Allograft used in revision surgery after septic conditions restores bone stock without the risk of recurrent infection.