Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA. Methods. A total of 40 patients undergoing rTHA were propensity score matched to 80 patients undergoing mTHA for OA. Patients were matched for age, sex, and preoperative function. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected pre- and postoperatively (mean 10 months (SD 2.2) in rTHA group and 12 months (SD 0.3) in mTHA group). In addition, patient satisfaction was collected postoperatively. Component accuracy was assessed using Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, and restoration of leg length were assessed radiologically. Results. There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ≥ 0.781) or function (p ≥ 0.383) between the groups. The postoperative OHS (difference 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 4.8; p = 0.038) and FJS (difference 21.1, 95% CI 10.7 to 31.5; p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the rTHA group when compared with the mTHA group. However, only the FJS was clinically significantly greater. There was no difference in the postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.017, 95% CI -0.042 to 0.077; p = 0.562) between the two groups. No patients were dissatisfied in the rTHA group whereas six were dissatisfied in the mTHA group, but this was not significant (p = 0.176). rTHA was associated with an overall greater rate of component positioning in a safe zone (p ≤ 0.003) and restoration of leg length (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Patients undergoing rTHA had a greater hip-specific functional outcome when compared to mTHA, which may be related to improved component positioning and restoration of leg length. However, there was no difference in their postoperative generic health or rate of satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):22–30