Aims

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty.

Aims. Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI. Material and Methods. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions. Results. The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions. . Conclusion. We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

Aims

This pilot study tested the performance of a rapid assay for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which measures synovial fluid calprotectin from total hip and knee revision patients.

Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma.

Cite this article: C. L. Romanò, H. Tsuchiya, I. Morelli, A. G. Battaglia, L. Drago. Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:199–206. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.85.BJR-2018-0316.