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. Between January 2010 and December 2018, 661 patients with multiple joint prostheses in situ were treated for PJI at our institution. Of these, 73 patients (11%) developed a metachronous PJI (periprosthetic infection in patients who have previously had PJI in another joint, after a lag period) after a mean time interval of 49.5 months (SD 30.24; 7 to 82.9). To identify patient-related risk factors for a metachronous PJI, the following parameters were analyzed: sex; age; BMI; and pre-existing comorbidity. Metachronous infections were divided into three groups: Group 1, metachronous infections in ipsilateral joints; Group 2, metachronous infections of the contralateral lower limb; and Group 3, metachronous infections of the lower and upper limb.Aims
Methods
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains
demanding due to limitations of all the available diagnostic tests.
The synovial fluid marker, α-defensin, is a promising adjunct for
the assessment of potential PJI. The purpose of this study was to
investigate the qualitative assessment of α-defensin, using Synovasure
to detect or exclude periprosthetic infection in total joint arthroplasty. We studied 50 patients (28 women, 22 men, mean age 65 years;
20 to 89) with a clinical indication for revision arthroplasty who
met the inclusion criteria of this prospective diagnostic study.
The presence of α-defensin was determined using the qualitative
Synovasure test and compared with standard diagnostic methods for
PJI. Based on modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS)
criteria, 13 cases were categorised as septic and 36 as aseptic revisions.
One test was inconclusive.Aims
Patients and Methods
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.
