Aims. Biopsy of the periprosthetic tissue is an important diagnostic tool for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as it enables the detection of the responsible microorganism with its sensitivity to antibiotics. We aimed to investigate how often the bacteria identified in the tissue analysis differed between samples obtained from preoperative biopsy and intraoperative revision surgery in cases of late PJI; and whether there was a therapeutic consequence. Methods. A total of 508 patients who required revision surgery of total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 231) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (n = 277) because of component loosening underwent biopsy before revision surgery. The tissue samples collected at biopsy and during revision surgery were analyzed according to the criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS). Results. In total, 178 (113 THA, 65 TKA) were classified as infected. The biopsy procedure had a sensitivity of 93.8%, a specificity of 97.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.9%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.7%, and an accuracy of 96.1%. Of the 178 infected patients, 26 showed a difference in the detected bacteria from the biopsy and the revision surgery (14.6%). This difference required a change to antibiotic therapy in only two cases (1.1%). Conclusion. Biopsy is a useful tool to diagnose PJI, but there may be a difference in the detected bacteria between the biopsy and revision surgery. However, this did not affect the choice of antibiotic therapy in most cases, rendering the clinical relevance of this phenomenon as low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):329–335

Aims

Despite numerous studies focusing on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. Metachronous PJIs are PJIs that can arise in the same or other artificial joints after a period of time, in patients who have previously had PJI.

Aims

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the synovial alpha-defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the work-up prior to revision of total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Fungal peri-prosthetic infections of the knee and hip are rare but likely to result in devastating complications. In this study we evaluated the results of their management using a single-stage exchange technique. Between 2001 and 2011, 14 patients (ten hips, four knees) were treated for a peri-prosthetic fungal infection. One patient was excluded because revision surgery was not possible owing to a large acetabular defect. One patient developed a further infection two months post-operatively and was excluded from the analysis. Two patients died of unrelated causes.

After a mean of seven years (3 to 11) a total of ten patients were available for follow-up. One patient, undergoing revision replacement of the hip, had a post-operative dislocation. Another patient, undergoing revision replacement of the knee, developed a wound infection and required revision 29 months post-operatively following a peri-prosthetic femoral fracture.

The mean Harris hip score increased to 74 points (63 to 84; p < 0.02) in those undergoing revision replacement of the hip, and the mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score increased to 75 points (70 to 80; p < 0.01) in those undergoing revision replacement of the knee.

A single-stage revision following fungal peri-prosthetic infection is feasible, with an acceptable rate of a satisfactory outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:492–6.

Allografts of bone from the femoral head are often used in orthopaedic procedures. Although the donated heads are thoroughly tested microscopically before release by the bone bank, some surgeons take additional cultures in the operating theatre before implantation. There is no consensus about the need to take these cultures. We retrospectively assessed the clinical significance of the implantation of positive-cultured bone allografts. The contamination rate at retrieval of the allografts was 6.4% in our bone bank. Intra-operative cultures were taken from 426 femoral head allografts before implantation; 48 (11.3%) had a positive culture. The most frequently encountered micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Deep infection occurred in two of the 48 patients (4.2%). In only one was it likely that the same micro-organism caused the contamination and the subsequent infection.

In our study, the rate of infection in patients receiving positive-cultured allografts at implantation was not higher than the overall rate of infection in allograft surgery suggesting that the positive cultures at implantation probably represent contamination and that the taking of additional cultures is not useful.