The December 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: Biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infection; HbA1c and complications in arthroplasty; Getting to the bottom of biofilms; Effective antibiosis for biofilms; Stem cells and avascular necrosis; Predicting LOS in total joint arthroplasty; Long-term antibiotics reduce recurrence in periprosthetic infection
The purpose of this study was to validate the diagnosis of periprosthetic
joint infection (PJI) in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR). We identified a cohort of patients from the DHR who had undergone
primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) since 1 January 2005 and followed
them until first-time revision, death, emigration or until 31 December
2012. Revision for PJI, as registered in the DHR, was validated against
a benchmark which included information from microbiology databases,
prescription registers, clinical biochemistry registers and clinical
records. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive
value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for PJI in the DHR
alone and in the DHR when combined with microbiology databases.Aims
Patients and Methods
The June 2015 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: neuraxial anaesthesia and large joint arthroplasty; revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery; acetabular version and clinical outcomes in impingement surgery; hip precautions may be ineffective; implant selection and cost effectiveness; femoroacetabular impingement in the older age group; multiple revision in hip arthroplasty
Adverse reaction to wear and corrosion debris
is a cause for concern in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Modular junctions
are a potential source of such wear products and are associated
with secondary pseudotumour formation. We present a consecutive series of 17 patients treated at our
unit for this complication following metal-on-highly cross-linked
polyethylene (MoP) THA. We emphasise the risk of misdiagnosis as
infection, and present the aggregate laboratory results and pathological
findings in this series. The clinical presentation was pain, swelling or instability.
Solid, cystic and mixed soft-tissue lesions were noted on imaging
and confirmed intra-operatively. Corrosion at the head–neck junction
was noted in all cases. No bacteria were isolated on multiple pre-
and intra-operative samples yet the mean erythrocyte sedimentation
rate was 49 (9 to 100) and C-reactive protein 32 (0.6 to 106) and
stromal polymorphonuclear cell counts were noted in nine cases. Adverse soft–tissue reactions can occur in MoP THA owing to corrosion
products released from the head–neck junction. The diagnosis should
be carefully considered when investigating pain after THA. This
may avoid the misdiagnosis of periprosthetic infection with an unidentified
organism and mitigate the unnecessary management of these cases
with complete single- or two-stage exchange. Cite this article:
We hypothesised that the use of tantalum (Ta)
acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was protective
against subsequent failure due to infection. We identified 966 patients
(421 men, 545 women and 990 hips) who had undergone revision THA
between 2000 and 2013. The mean follow up was 40.2 months (3 months
to 13.1 years). The mean age of the men and women was 62.3 years
(31 to 90) and 65.1 years (25 to 92), respectively. Titanium (Ti) acetabular components were used in 536 hips while
Ta components were used in 454 hips. In total, 73 (7.3%) hips experienced
subsequent acetabular failure. The incidence of failure was lower
in the Ta group at 4.4% (20/454) compared with 9.9% (53/536) in
the Ti group (p <
0.001, odds ratio 2.38; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.27).
Among the 144 hips (64 Ta, 80 Ti) for which revision had been performed
because of infection, failure due to a subsequent infection was
lower in the Ta group at 3.1% (2/64) compared with 17.5% (14/80)
for the Ti group (p = 0.006). Thus, the use of Ta acetabular components during revision THA
was associated with a lower incidence of failure from all causes
and Ta components were associated with a lower incidence of subsequent
infection when used in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. Cite this article:
The aim of our study was to describe the characteristics,
treatment, and outcomes of patients with periprosthetic joint infection
(PJI) and normal inflammatory markers after total knee arthroplasty
(TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). In total 538 TKAs and 414 THAs underwent surgical treatment for
PJI and met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein level (CRP) were reviewed to identify
the seronegative cohort. An age- and gender-matched cohort was identified
from the remaining patients for comparison. Overall, 4% of confirmed
infections were seronegative (21 TKA and 17 THA). Of those who underwent
pre-operative aspiration, cultures were positive in 76% of TKAs
(n = 13) and 64% of THAs (n = 7). Cell count and differential were
suggestive of infection in 85% of TKA (n = 11) and all THA aspirates
(n = 5). The most common organism was coagulase-negative Cite this article:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether
the serum level of interleukin 6 (IL-6) could be used to identify the
persistence of infection after the first stage of a two-stage revision
for periprosthetic joint infection. Between 2010 and 2011, we prospectively studied 55 patients (23
men, 32 women; mean age 69.5 years; 36 to 86) with a periprosthetic
joint infection. Bacteria were identified in two intra-operative
tissue samples during re-implantation in 16 patients. These cases
were classified as representing persistent infection. To calculate a precise cut-off value which could be used in everyday
clinical practice, a 3 x 2 contingency table was constructed and
manually defined. We found that a serum IL-6 ≥ 13 pg/mL can be regarded as indicating
infection: its positive-predictive value is 90.9%. A serum IL-6 ≤ 8
pg/mL can be regarded as indicating an absence of infection: its
negative predictive value is 92.1%. The serum IL-6 level seems to be a reasonable marker for identifying
persistent infection after the first stage of a revision joint arthroplasty
and before attempting re-implantation. Cite this article:
Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint
infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques
into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms
are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial
agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing,
a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation
and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic
joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents
the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint
infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin
resistant staphylococci. Cite this article:
The December 2014 Knee Roundup360 looks at: national guidance on arthroplasty thromboprophylaxis is effective; unicompartmental knee replacement has the edge in terms of short-term complications; stiff knees, timing and manipulation; neuropathic pain and total knee replacement; synovial fluid α-defensin and CRP: a new gold standard in joint infection diagnosis?; how to assess anterior knee pain?; where is the evidence? Five new implants under the spotlight; and a fresh look at ACL reconstruction
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article: