Aims. To establish the utility of adding the laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay to the traditional diagnostic work-up of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A group of four physicians evaluated 158 consecutive patients who were worked up for PJI, of which 94 underwent revision arthroplasty. Each physician reviewed the diagnostic data and decided on the presence of PJI according to the 2014 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria (yes, no, or undetermined). Their initial randomized review of the available data before or after surgery was blinded to each alpha-defensin result and a subsequent randomized review was conducted with each result. Multilevel logistic regression analysis assessed the effect of having the alpha-defensin result on the ability to diagnose PJI. Alpha-defensin was correlated to the number of synovial white blood cells (WBCs) and percentage of polymorphonuclear cells (%PMN). Results. Intraobserver reliability and interobserver agreement did not change when the alpha-defensin result was available. Positive alpha-defensin results had greater synovial WBCs (mean 31,854 cells/μL, SD 32,594) and %PMN (mean 93.0%, SD 5.5%) than negative alpha-defensin results (mean 974 cells/μL, SD 3,988; p < 0.001 and mean 39.4% SD 28.6%; p < 0.001). Adding the alpha-defensin result did not alter the diagnosis of a PJI using preoperative (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.88; p = 0.315) or operative (OR 0.52, CI 0.18 to 1.55; p = 0.242) data when clinicians already decided that PJI was present or absent with traditionally available testing. However, when undetermined with traditional preoperative testing, alpha-defensin helped diagnose (OR 0.44, CI 0.30 to 0.64; p < 0.001) or rule out (OR 0.41, CI 0.17 to 0.98; p = 0.044) PJI. Of the 27 undecided cases with traditional testing, 24 (89%) benefited from the addition of alpha-defensin testing. Conclusion. The laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay did not help diagnose or rule out a PJI when added to routine serologies and synovial fluid analyses except in cases where the diagnosis of PJI was unclear. We recommend against the routine use of alpha-defensin and suggest using it only when traditional testing is indeterminate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):593–599

Aims

The primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services.

Obtaining a balanced flexion gap with correct femoral component rotation is one of the prerequisites for a successful outcome after total knee replacement (TKR). Different techniques for achieving this have been described. In this study we prospectively compared gap-balancing versus measured resection in terms of reliability and accuracy for femoral component rotation in 96 primary TKRs performed in 96 patients using the Journey system. In 48 patients (18 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 65 years (45 to 85) a tensor device was used to determine rotation. In the second group of 48 patients (14 men and 34 women) with a mean age of 64 years (41 to 86), an ‘adapted’ measured resection technique was used, taking into account the native rotational geometry of the femur as measured on a pre-operative CT scan.

Both groups systematically reproduced a similar external rotation of the femoral component relative to the surgical transepicondylar axis: 2.4° (sd 2.5) in the gap-balancing group and 1.7° (sd 2.1) in the measured resection group (p = 0.134). Both gap-balancing and adapted measured resection techniques proved equally reliable and accurate in determining femoral component rotation after TKR. There was a tendency towards more external rotation in the gap-balancing group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.134). The number of outliers for our ‘adapted’ measured resection technique was much lower than reported in the literature.

We have investigated the accuracy of the templating of digital radiographs in planning total hip replacement using two common object-based calibration methods with the ball placed laterally (method 1) or medially (method 2) and compared them with two non-object-based methods. The latter comprised the application of a fixed magnification of 121% (method 3) and calculation of magnification based on the object-film-distance (method 4). We studied the post-operative radiographs of 57 patients (19 men, 38 women, mean age 73 years (53 to 89)) using the measured diameter of the prosthetic femoral head and comparing it with the true value.

Both object-based methods (1 and 2) produced large errors (mean/maximum: 2.55%/17.4% and 2.04%/6.46%, respectively). Method 3 applying a fixed magnification and method 4 (object-film-distance) produced smaller errors (mean/maximum 1.42%/5.22% and 1.57%/4.24%, respectively; p < 0.01). The latter results were clinically relevant and acceptable when planning was allowed to within one implant size. Object-based calibration (methods 1 and 2) has fundamental problems with the correct placement of the calibration ball. The accuracy of the fixed magnification (method 3) matched that of object-film-distance (method 4) and was the most reliable and efficient calibration method in digital templating.