An instrumented blood culture system automatically flags when growth within the culture medium has been detected (‘work in progress’), and subsequently when the organism has been identified. We explore using this data to switch patients to oral therapy within 72 hours post-surgery, reducing costs and improving antimicrobial stewardship. This retrospective review focused on clinically significant culture-positive bone and joint infections over a 5-month period in 2022. Two cohorts were defined as either having positive intraoperative microbiology at <72 hours or at ≥72 hours.Aim
Method
Current guidelines for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) recommend collecting 4–5 independent tissue specimens, with isolation of indistinguishable organisms from two or more specimens. The same principle has been applied to other orthopaedic device-related infections (DRI) including fracture-related infections. However there are few published data validating this approach in DRI other than PJI. We evaluated the performance of different diagnostic cutoffs and varying numbers of tissue specimens for microbiological sampling in fracture-related infections. We used standard protocols for tissue sample collection and laboratory processing, and a standard clinical definition of fracture-related infection. We explored how tissue culture sensitivity and specificity varied with the number of tissue specimens obtained; and with the number of specimens from which an identical isolate was required (diagnostic cutoff). To model the effect of the number of specimens taken we randomly sampled Aim
Method
Collection of 4–5 independent peri-prosthetic tissue samples is recommended for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. Sonication of explanted prostheses has also been shown to increase microbiological yield in some centres. We compared sonication with standard tissue sampling for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and other orthopaedic device related infections. We used standard protocols for sample collection, tissue culture and sonication. Positive tissue culture was defined as isolation of a phenotypically indistinguishable organism from ≥2 samples; and positive sonication culture as isolation of an organism at ≥50 cfu/ml. We compared the diagnostic performance of each method against an established clinical definition of infection (Trampuz 2011), and against a composite clinical and microbiological definition of infection based on international consensus (Gehrke & Parvizi 2013). 350 specimens were received for sonication, including joint prostheses (160), exchangeable components (76), other orthopaedic hardware and cement (104), and bone (10). A median of 5 peri-prosthetic tissue samples were received from each procedure (IQR 4–5). Tissue culture was more sensitive than sonication for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and orthopaedic device related infection using both the clinical definition (66% versus 57%, McNemar's Χ2 test p=0.016) and the composite definition of infection (87% vs 66%, p<0.001). The combination of tissue culture and sonication provided optimum sensitivity: 73% (95% confidence interval 65–79%) against the clinical definition and 92% (86–96%) against the composite definition. Results were similar when analysis was confined to joint prostheses and exchangeable components; other orthopaedic hardware; and patients who had received antibiotics within 14 days prior to surgery. Tissue sampling appears to have higher sensitivity than sonication for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and orthopaedic device infection at our centre. This may reflect rigorous collection of multiple peri-prosthetic tissue samples. A combination of methods may offer optimal sensitivity, reflecting the anatomical and biological spectrum of prosthetic joint and other device related infections.
