Aim. It is traditionally stated that around 80% of all periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are caused by well-known gram-positive organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus. With the advances in diagnostic modalities and improved abilities to isolate infective organisms, we believe the organism profile causing PJI has changed over time and includes numerous other organisms that were either not recognized as pathogens and/or considered as contaminants. Method. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1,363 patients with confirmed PJI (559 THA and 804 TKA) who received treatment at our institution between 2000 and 2019. Pertinent data related to demographics, microbiological findings, and outcome of treatment were collected. Organisms were differentiated using culture or confirmed by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-time of flight (MALDI-tof) mass spectrometry. Statistical analysis included logistic regressions. Results. There was a total of 26 different species of organisms that resulted in PJI in our cohort. The rate of PJI caused by slow growing organisms, that are catalase negative, such as Streptococcal viridans (OR 1.244; 95% CI 1.036–1.494), Streptococcus agalactiae (OR 1.513; 95% CI 1.207–1.898), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (OR 1.321; 95% CI 1.191–1.466) has been increasing over time. In contrast, the incidence of PJI caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (OR 0.954; 95% CI 0.927–0.981); resistant species (OR 0.962, 95% CI 0.931–0.995), and Gram-positive species (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.914–0.966) decreased over time. Notably, there was a higher prevalence of Streptococcal PJI (OR 0.551, 95% CI 0.374–0.812) and culture-negative PJI (OR 0.652, 95% CI 0.478–0.890) seen in knees versus hips. The rate of culture negative PJI also increased from 20% in 2000 to 28% in 2019. In the latter years of the study, very unusual list of organisms causing PJI were also identified. Conclusions. This study reveals that the list of organisms causing PJI has expanded in recent years. The study also finds that some the slow growing organisms that were previously believed to be “contaminants” can and do cause PJI in a considerable number of patients. The number of culture negative cases of PJI has also increased at our institution over the years. There are a number of explanations for the latter finding, perhaps with the most important reason being liberal use of antibiotics that interferes with isolation of the infective organism

Aim

It is unclear if the prevalence of resistance organisms causing (PJI) in total hip/knee arthroplasty is different among North/South American and European countries. Therefore, we sought to compare causative organisms, rates of resistant organisms, and polymicrobial infections in hospitals in North/South America, and Europe.

Aims

Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP.

Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis remains one of the most important strategies for preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current guidelines recommend giving universal antibiotic prophylaxis to all total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients regardless of their medical conditions or immune status. The aims of this study were to determine if comorbidities influence the organism profile of PJIs and to investigate if the efficacy of the two most frequently used perioperative antibiotics (cefazolin or vancomycin) are affected by patient comorbidities. Using an institutional database, the influence of comorbidities on the organism profile of 1022 PJIs was evaluated. To investigate the influence of perioperative antibiotic monotherapy (cefazolin or vancomycin therapy) on PJI, 8575 primary TJAs were identified and analyzed based on their comorbidities. Patients with multiple perioperative antibiotics, prior septic arthritis, unavailable perioperative antibiotic information, or who underwent aseptic revision were excluded. PJI was determined from ICD-9 codes. While no comorbidities were associated with an increased rate of gram-positive or gram-negative infections, metastatic disease (odds ratio [OR] 7.54, p=0.006), rheumatologic disease (OR 1.63, p=0.046), and chronic pulmonary disease (OR 1.46, p=0.030) demonstrated an increased risk of Staphylococcus aureus PJI. In addition, metastatic disease (OR 5.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–26.93, p=0.018), congestive heart failure (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.16–4.00, p=0.010), chronic pulmonary disease (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.09–2.78, p=0.015), and diabetes (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.08–2.52, p=0.019) were associated with PJI from antibiotic resistant organisms. However, there was no difference in the rate of PJI between cefazolin and vancomycin monotherapy when stratified for the aforementioned comorbidities. The present study reveals that comorbidities do not significantly alter the organism profile of high-risk comorbidities and that comorbidities associated with immune deficits do not influence the rate of PJI between two different antibiotics. The results of this study thus support current guidelines, which provide a universal recommendation rather than a protocol that is tailored to a patient's preexisting comorbidities

Literature debates whether fluid aspirates for suspected PJI should undergo prolonged incubation for cultures. We looked at sensitivity and specificity of 14-day cultures, compared to 7-days, for aspirates from prosthetic hips and knees. Design and methods. Conducted at a quaternary referral centre for PJIs from Jan 2017 to July 2019. Suspected PJIs who underwent aspiration, incubated 14 days and later surgical intervention with minimum three tissue samples were included. Results. 176 aspirates were included. This is an increased number compared to our historic figures (average 88 Vs 48 pts/yr). 47 patients had fluid and tissue positive (true positive), 20 fluid +ive but tissue -ive (false positive), 98 fluid and tissue -ive (true negative) and 15 fluid negative but tissue +ive (False negative). Thus, sensitivity 76%, specificity 83%, positive predictive value70% and negative predictive value 87%. Of 88 positive aspirates, only 75% were within 7-day cultures. Low virulence organisms as Propionibacterium acnes and coagulase negative staph were grown later. Of 48 with only one tissue sample positive, 38 were culture-negative on aspiration and 6 grew different organisms on aspirate and tissues. Also, as many were cultured later, it suggests contamination. Conclusion. Increased numbers reflect quaternary referral nature of institution and increasing PJI load. Modest drop in sensitivity and specificity of 14-day cultures compared to 7-day(84 and 85% respectively) is due to higher false negatives. Contamination contributes to false-ive as more tissue samples become positive (there were 1076 tissue samples due to multiple sampling Vs 176 aspirates). Higher tissue yield may also be because they are more representative. Effect of antibiotic use between samples cannot be determined. Organism profile suggest14-day culture produces more contaminant growth despite a well-equipped microbiology lab with laminar airflow for subcultures. Caution in interpreting 14-day results in diagnosis of PJI of Hip and Knee is advised

Aim. Mega-endoprosthesis over the last two decades have played a significant role in management of non-neoplastic cases for limb salvage for a variety of indications involving bone loss, infection, fracture and failed revision surgery. This is a retrospective case control study comparing outcomes of Mega-Endoprosthesis (MEP) in non-neoplastic cases with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), with previous history of PJI and aseptic revision. Failure was defined as persistence/recurrence of infection, all cause revision, and antibiotic suppression during the follow up period. Secondary aims were identification of causative organisms, resistance profile and causative factors for revision surgery. Method. A total of 122 patients undergoing 133 MEPs were identified between January 2012 and December 2020. 60 procedures were categorised as group 1 (infection; 50%), 20 as group 2 (previous history of infection; 16.7%), and 53 controls (no infection; 44.2%). Mean age of the cohort was 70.97 years (37.16–94.17), with a mean follow-up of 44.5 months (0.2–179) including patients lost to follow up. Results. Overall failure rate was 71/133 53.3% (group 1 39/60 (55.56%), group 2 12/20 (60%) and controls 20/53 (37.7%)). Thirteen patients died in the first 2 years (five in group 1, one in group 2 & seven in controls). The most common postoperative infection was polymicrobial followed by Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus Species (CoNS) and Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). Nineteen patients had polymicrobial PJI (Eighteen in group 1 and one in control). CoNS led to postoperative infection in Fifteen patients (six in group 1, five in group 2 and four in control group). MSSA was the pathogen in four patients (three in group-1 and one in the control group). The same organisms were responsible for recurrent infection in fourteen patients in group 1 and one patient in group 2. Limb salvage was achieved in 96.2% overall (95% group 1, 90% group 2, 100% control group). Conclusions. MEPs in the context of PJI have a significant risk of failure however they play an important role in limb salvage. Patients should be counselled appropriately prior to surgery

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. Methods. In this prospective study samples were collected in 238 consecutive patients undergoing revision total hip and knee arthroplasties. Of these 83 patients (34.9%) had PJI, as determined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and of these 20 were culture-negative (CN-PJI). Synovial fluid, deep tissue and swabs were obtained at the time of surgery and sent for NGS and culture/MALDI-TOF. Patients undergoing reimplantation were excluded. Treatment failure was assessed using the previously described Delphi criteria. In cases of re-operation, organisms present were confirmed by culture and MALDI-TOF. Concordance of the infecting pathogen(s) at failure with the NGS analysis at the initial stage CN- PJI procedure was determined. Results. Twenty cases of culture-negative PJI were identified (Figure 1). CNPJI rate in our samples was 24%. NGS was positive in 18 cases. Two cases were both culture and NGS negative. Eight CN-PJIs (8/20; 40%) failed by re-operation with infection recurrence confirmed on culture. In 7 of these 8 cases (88%), the organism at failure was present on NGS at the time of the initial CN-PJI procedure. The remaining case failed with a new organism, via likely hematogenous seeding from an inter-current infection (Figure 2). NGS detected several organisms in CN-PJI cases (Figure 3). Discussion. CN-PJI is often associated with polymicrobial genomic organism profile. Furthermore, most of the failures by infection recurrence were due to an organism previously detected by NGS. Our findings suggest some cases of PJI may be polymicrobial and escape detection using conventional culture. Further multi-institutional work with larger numbers and longer clinical follow-up is required for validation

Aim. As the populations of patients who have multiple prosthetic joints increase these years, the fate of a single joint periprosthetic joint infection in these patients is still unknown. Risk factors leading to a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint are unclear. Our goal is to identify the risk factors of developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint and describe the organism profile to the second prosthetic infection. Method. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all PJI cases underwent surgical intervention at our institute, a tertiary care referral center over 11 years, during January 2006 to December 2016. We identified 96 patients with periprosthetic joint infection who had another prosthetic joint in place at the time of presentation. The comorbidity, number of prosthetic joints, date and type of each arthroplasty, times of recurrent infection at each prosthetic joint with subsequent debridement or 2-stage resection arthroplasty, organisms from every infection episode, the outcome of each periprosthetic joint infection in these patients were analyzed. Results. During January 2006 to May 2017, we retrospective collected 294 PJI cases (159 hips, 135 knees) in our institute. Patients with single prosthetic joint were excluded and finally 96 patients were included. Of the 96 patients, 19 (19.79%) developed a periprosthetic joint infection in a second joint. The type of organism was the same as the first infection in 12 (63.16%) of 19 patients. The time to developing a second infection averaged 2.16 years (range, 0–9.3 years). The risk factors leading to a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint are albumin level (< 3.5 mg/dl), long-term steroid usage (> 5mg/day, > 3 months), history of necrotizing fasciitis, history of invasive dental procedure (> Grade IV procedure), 3-stage resection arthroplasty or more, and PJI caused by vacomycin-resistent enterococcus (VRE). Conclusions. A PJI might predispose patients to subsequent PJI in another prosthesis. Patients and surgeons must be aware of the risk factors contribute to this devastating complication. Most organisms in the second PJI are identical to the first one, and we believe the bacteremia may be the pathogenesis, but need further proved. The preventive policy may be needed in the future for this population who has multiple prosthetic joints

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis remains one of the most important strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with current guideline recommending a first or second generation cephalosporin. Penicillin (PCN) allergy is often reported by patients, which often results in avoidance of administration of cephalosporins due to fear of cross-reactivity. Alternative medications, such as vancomyin, are often used despite reduced antimicrobial coverage. The purpose of this study was to determine if PCN allergic patients who received vancomycin alone prior to elective primary total joint arthroplasty were at increased risk of developing a subsequent PJI. A retrospective review of 7,602 primary total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) performed between 2005 and 2013 in two institutions were identified using a prospective institutional database. Patient reported PCN or cephalosporin allergy was electronically queried from the anesthesia note. Patients who recieved multiple prophylactic antibiotics, or had unavailable perioperative antibiotic information, or those who received medication other than cefazolin and vancomycin were excluded. PJI was determined using a cross-match with an institutional PJI database constructed from International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes. Logistic regression analysis was then performed to evaluate the risk of subsequent PJI. The rate of PJI was 1.4% (32/2296) in patients with a reported PCN allergy that received vancomycin alone versus 1.1% (59/5306) in non-PCN allergic patients that received cefazolin alone. The multivariate analysis, with the given sample size, did not detect a statistically significant increased risk of PJI when vancomycin was administered alone (adjusted odds ratio: 1.23, 95% CI 0.6–3.1, p=0.35). While there was no significant differences in the organism profile between PJIs in both groups, the rate of PJI caused by resistant organisms was higher in patients who received vancomycin alone (11.9%, 7/59) compared to those who received cefazolin (3.1%, 1/32). While administration of perioperative prophylactic vancomycin alone during elective primary arthroplasty does not seem to result in a higher rate of subsequent PJI, patients who received vancomycin alone and developed a PJI were more likely to develop an infection with an antibiotic resistant organism. Future studies are needed to determine the most appropriate prophylactic antibiotic for patients who undergo elective arthroplasty and report PCN allergy

Debridement of an infected total joint arthroplasty with retention of mechanically stable components is often performed for acute cases of periprosthetic infection (PPI). However, the reported success of such a procedure to fully eradicate infection has varied widely. The objective of this study was to elucidate the efficacy of debridement in both infected THA and TKA and attempt to identify risk factors responsible for failure. During the years 2000–2005, 71 TKA and 69 THA underwent irrigation and debridement for acute PPI (< 4 weeks). All patients were followed up prospectively for at least two years. Detailed data including demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medication intake was collected. Intraoperative data, organism profile, and complications were also documented. Failure was defined as patient requiring additional surgical procedure for control of infection or loosening. Of the 140 patients, 24% required repeat irrigation and debridement for postoperative drainage, hema-toma formation, or systemic symptoms. One third of these revision debridement patients underwent multiple consecutive debridements. Two-stage resection arthroplasty was required in 65 patients (46%) of the entire cohort. Fifty-eight percent of the patients with resection required revision of their cement spacer block due to continuous drainage and systemic symptoms indicative of persistent infection. We noted a total of 86 failures (61%) that required either an additional debridement or resection arthroplasty after the first debridement procedure. The failure rates of THA (62%) and TKA (55%) individually were similar (p=0.253). Although the concept of conservative management of PPI with debridement and retention of components is an attractive alternative to resection arthroplasty, we have found that 60% of patients undergoing this procedure will inevitably undergo two-stage arthroplasty. Furthermore, more than half of the patients that required resection arthroplasty developed infection of their spacer that entailed revision of the cement block. Therefore, we can conclude that this procedure has a high failure rate and should be implemented in only a select group of patients

Currently two-stage resection arthroplasty is the preferred method for surgical treatment of periprosthetic infection in North America. However, the success of this treatment strategy has varied from 54% to 98% based on previous reports. The exact reason for this variation in outcome is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of this treatment modality and delineate patient risk factors that result in recurrent infection and failure. During the period of this study (2000–2005) 77 patients with an infected THA were treated at our institution. Fifty-four patients underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty while the remaining 22 failed to have the second stage reimplantation due to ill health. The latter 22 were excluded from the analysis. All patients were followed up prospectively for at least two years after reimplantation. Detailed data including demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medication intake was collected. Intraoperative data, organism profile, and complications were also documented. Failure was defined as patient requiring additional surgical procedure for control of infection or loosening. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty successfully eradicated infection in 36 patients (67%) without need for further treatment. Seven patients (13%) had recurrent infection that necessitated resection arthroplasty. Eleven (20%) patients required irrigation and debridement for postoperative purulent drainage which successfully treated infection in 8 of the cases. The remaining 3 patients failed and required resection arthroplasty. Three additional patients had early loosening of components and required revision arthroplasty. The exact cause of loosening in these patients could not be determined and despite lack of isolation of organisms infection was suspected. Multivariate analysis identified previous medical comorbidity and postoperative allogenic transfusion as risk factors for failure. Current strategies to treat periprosthetic infection remain imperfect. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with all its inherent problems and inconveniences imparted a modest success in treatment of PPI at our high volume specialized center. With the increase in the number of virulent and resistant organisms, and the rise in arthroplasties being performed in infirm patients with medical comorbidities the success of this procedure is likely to be jeopardized. Novel treatment modalities to combat this dreaded condition is needed

Periprosthetic infection (PPI) is one of the most devastating complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is widely accepted that resection arthroplasty supplemented with intravenous antibiotics and delayed exchange arthroplasty is the treatment modality of choice for infected TKA. However, the outcome after reimplantation has varied and unpredictable results have been reported. This study evaluates the outcome of this treatment strategy in a single high volume specialised center. Furthermore, our study aims to identify the factors that lead to failure of this treatment. A thorough review of our joint registry database revealed that 80 patients with an infected TKA underwent resection arthroplasty at our institution during 2000–2005. Sixty-five patients underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty while the remaining 15 failed to have the second stage reimplantation due to ill health or underwent arthrodesis or amputation. The latter 15 were excluded from the analysis. All patients were followed up prospectively for at least two years. Detailed data including demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medication intake was collected. Intraoperative data, organism profile, and complications were also documented. Failure was defined as patient requiring additional surgical procedure for control of infection or loosening. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty successfully eradicated infection in 45 patients (31%) without need for further treatment. Twelve patients (18%) had recurrent infection that necessitated another resection arthroplasty. Eleven (17%) patients required irrigation and debridement for postoperative purulent drainage which successfully treated infection in 5 cases (46%). The remaining 6 patients failed and required resection arthroplasty. Three additional patients had early loosening of components and required revision arthroplasty. The exact cause of loosening in these patients could not be determined, and despite lack of isolation of organisms infection was suspected. Our analysis identified that irrigation and debridement prior to resection arthroplasty are major risk factors for failure. Current strategies to treat periprosthetic infection remain imperfect. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with all its inherent problems and inconveniences imparted a modest success in treatment of PPI at our high volume specialised center. The rise in the number of resistant and virulent organisms, increase in the number of patients with severe medical comorbidities who develop infection may account for the decline in the success of two-stage resection arthroplasty. Novel strategies for treatment of PPI are desperately needed

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome.

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

Aims

Failure of irrigation and debridement (I&D) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by numerous host, surgical, and pathogen-related factors. We aimed to develop and validate a practical, easy-to-use tool based on machine learning that may accurately predict outcome following I&D surgery taking into account the influence of numerous factors.

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.