Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has always been challenging. Recently, D-dimer has become a promising biomarker in diagnosing PJI. However, there is controversy regarding its diagnostic value. We aim to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in comparison to ESR and CRP. Methods. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2020 to identify articles reporting on the diagnostic value of D-dimer on PJI. Pooled analysis was conducted to investigate the diagnostic value of D-dimer, CRP, and ESR. Results. Six studies with 1,255 cases were included (374 PJI cases and 881 non-PJI cases). Overall D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.87) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86). Sub-group analysis by excluding patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders showed sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88). Serum D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90). Plasma D-dimer showed sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73), specificity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.72). CRP showed sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.87). ESR showed sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.73), specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). Conclusion. In patients without thrombosis or a hyper-coagulation disorder, D-dimer has a higher diagnostic value compared to CRP and ESR. In patients with the aforementioned conditions, D-dimer has higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to ESR and CRP. We do not recommend the use of serum D-dimer in patients with thrombosis and hyper-coagulation disorders for diagnosing PJI. Serum D-dimer may perform better than plasma D-dimer. Further studies are needed to compare serum D-dimer and plasma D-dimer in arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):701–708

Aims. Biofilm-related infection is a major complication that occurs in orthopaedic surgery. Various treatments are available but efficacy to eradicate infections varies significantly. A systematic review was performed to evaluate therapeutic interventions combating biofilm-related infections on in vivo animal models. Methods. Literature research was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords used for search criteria were “bone AND biofilm”. Information on the species of the animal model, bacterial strain, evaluation of biofilm and bone infection, complications, key findings on observations, prevention, and treatment of biofilm were extracted. Results. A total of 43 studies were included. Animal models used included fracture-related infections (ten studies), periprosthetic joint infections (five studies), spinal infections (three studies), other implant-associated infections, and osteomyelitis. The most common bacteria were Staphylococcus species. Biofilm was most often observed with scanning electron microscopy. The natural history of biofilm revealed that the process of bacteria attachment, proliferation, maturation, and dispersal would take 14 days. For systemic mono-antibiotic therapy, only two of six studies using vancomycin reported significant biofilm reduction, and none reported eradication. Ten studies showed that combined systemic and topical antibiotics are needed to achieve higher biofilm reduction or eradication, and the effect is decreased with delayed treatment. Overall, 13 studies showed promising therapeutic potential with surface coating and antibiotic loading techniques. Conclusion. Combined topical and systemic application of antimicrobial agents effectively reduces biofilm at early stages. Future studies with sustained release of antimicrobial and biofilm-dispersing agents tailored to specific pathogens are warranted to achieve biofilm eradication. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):700–714