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. This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance.Aims
Methods
Recently, several synovial biomarkers have been introduced into
the algorithm for the diagnosis of a prosthetic joint infection
(PJI). Alpha defensin is a promising biomarker, with a high sensitivity
and specificity, but it is expensive. Calprotectin is a protein
that is present in the cytoplasm of neutrophils, is released upon
neutrophil activation and exhibits anti-microbial activity. Our
aim, in this study, was to determine the diagnostic potential of
synovial calprotectin in the diagnosis of a PJI. In this pilot study, we prospectively collected synovial fluid
from the hip, knee, shoulder and elbow of 19 patients with a proven
PJI and from a control group of 42 patients who underwent revision
surgery without a PJI. PJI was diagnosed according to the current diagnostic criteria
of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Synovial fluid was centrifuged
and the supernatant was used to measure the level of calprotectin
after applying a lateral flow immunoassay. Aims
Patients and Methods
Wound complications are reported in up to 10% hip and knee arthroplasties and there is a proven association between wound complications and deep prosthetic infections. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT) we explore the potential benefits of a portable, single use, incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressing (iNPWTd) on wound exudate, length of stay (LOS), wound complications, dressing changes and cost-effectiveness following total hip and knee arthroplasties. A total of 220 patients undergoing elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasties were recruited into in a non-blinded RCT. For the final analysis there were 102 patients in the study group and 107 in the control group.Objectives
Methods
Since the introduction of the National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis
and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents,
there have been reports of complications arising as a result of
their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications
after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our
unit. We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound
leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both
before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its
subsequent withdrawal from our unit. We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase
in post-operative
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.
The routine use of surgical drains in total hip arthroplasty remains controversial. They have not been shown to decrease the rate of wound infection significantly and can provide a retrograde route for it. Their use does not reduce the size or incidence of post-operative wound haematomas. This prospective, randomised study was designed to evaluate the role of drains in routine total hip arthroplasty. We investigated 552 patients (577 hips) undergoing unilateral or bilateral total hip arthroplasty who had been randomised to either having a drain for 24 hours or not having a drain. All patients followed standardised pre-, intra-, and post-operative regimes and were independently assessed using the Harris hip score before operation and at six, 18 and 36 months follow-up. The rate of superficial and deep infection was 2.9% and 0.4%, respectively, in the drained group and 4.8% and 0.7%, respectively in the undrained group. One patient in the undrained group had a haematoma which did not require drainage or transfusion. The rate of transfusion after operation in the drained group was significantly higher than for undrained procedures (p <
0.042). The use of a drain did not influence the post-operative levels of haemoglobin, the revision rates, Harris hip scores, the length of hospital stay or the incidence of thromboembolism. We conclude that drains provide no clear advantage at total hip arthroplasty, represent an additional cost, and expose patients to a higher risk of transfusion.