Aims

Leucocyte esterase (LE) has been shown to be an accurate marker of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and has been proposed as an alternative to frozen section (FS) histology for intraoperative diagnosis. In this study, the intraoperative assessment of LE was compared with FS histology for the diagnosis of prosthetic hip infection.

Leukocyte esterase (LE) has shown to be an accurate marker of prosthetic joint infections and has been proposed as an alternative to frozen section (FS) for intra-operative diagnosis. In this study, intra-operative determination of LE was compared with FS for the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip infections.

One hundred and nineteen patients undergoing hip revision surgery due to prosthetic joint failure from June 2015 to December 2017 were considered. Joint fluids were collected before the arthrotomy for determination of LE which was performed by using enzymatic colorimetric strips. Four to six samples were stained with hematoxylin eosin for FS and considered suggestive for infection when at least 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes in 5 fields at high power fields were found.

Sensitivity and specificity of LE were 100% and 93.8 %, respectively. The positive predictive value was 79.3 %, while the negative predictive value was 100%. Time from collection to response was 20.1 ± 4.4 minutes.

Sensitivity and specificity of FS were 83.3 % and 92.1 %, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 84.6 % and 97.1%. Time from sample collection response was 27.2 ± 6.9 minutes.

LE showed a higher sensitivity and a slightly lower specificity and the same diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative FS. The faster turnaround time (about 20 minutes from receiving of sample by the laboratory), its ease of use and the low costs make this test a valuable alternative to frozen sections and is going to replace FS in our clinical practice.

Previous studies showed that a fast-resorbable antibacterial hydrogel coating (DAC®, Novagenit Srl, Mezzolombardo, TN, Italy) composed of covalently linked hyaluronan and poly-D, L-lactide, is able to reduce early post-surgical infection both after joint replacement and osteosynthesis. Aim of the present report is to investigate medium-term safety and efficacy of the coating in patients undergoing primary and revision cementless total hip replacement (THR).

We designed a two-phases study. In both phases, DAC was prepared according to manufacturer's instructions. In brief, the syringe prefilled with 300 mg of sterile DAC powder was mixed, at the time of surgery, with a solution of 5 mL of sterile water and with the tailored antibiotics, at a concentration ranging from 25 mg/mL to 50 mg/mL. The resulting antibacterial hydrogel was then spread on the outer surface of the prosthesis just before implantation.

In the first phase, safety was assessed. Forty-six patients (13 primary and 33 revision THR) were treated with DAC between 2013 and 2015 and evaluated at a 2.8 ± 0.7 years follow up (FU). Antibiotics used for DAC reconstruction were Vancomycin in 33 cases, Vancomycin + Meropenem in 10, Vancomycin + Rifampicin, Teicoplanin or Ceftazidime in 1 case, respectively. Patients were evaluated at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly after with a clinical and radiographic FU. No evidence of infection and no failure/loosening of the prosthesis were observed. No adverse events were reported.

The second phase was designed to evaluate efficacy of DAC in preventing infection recurrences after a two stage revision for infected THR. Twenty-seven patients, treated with DAC coating, were compared with a control group of 32, treated in the same time period, without the coating. Demographics, host type and and identified bacteria were similar in the two groups (18.6% of MRSA in DAC group vs 18.5% MRSA in no-DAC group). Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly thereafter. At a minimum 2 years FU (mean 2.7), we observed 1 dislocation in each group and 2 cases of loosening in the no-DAC group. 4 cases (11%) of recurrence of infection in the no-DAC group (1 MRSA and 3 St. Epidermidis) and no infection recurrences in the DAC group. Due to the small cohort of patients this difference is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p=0.18).

This is, to our knowledge, the longest observation concerning the safety and efficacy of the DAC antibacterial coating, applied to hip replacement. The results are in line with those previously reported and point out the absence of side effects of the antibacterial coating in this application and the tendency to reduce re-infection in second stage. This finding needs to be confirmed by a larger dataset.