Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Patients and Methods. Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel–Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance with methods of the Cochrane group. Results. Our search strategy revealed 2272 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These comprised 11 randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. The overall quality of included studies was high but the observational studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors. The overall cumulative incidence of PJI across all studies was 0.78% (1514/193 378). For each bearing combination, the overall incidence was as follows: MoP 0.85% (1353/158 430); CoP 0.38% (67/17 489); and CoC 0.53% (94/17 459). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the three bearing combinations in terms of risk of PJI. Conclusion. On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:134–42

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688

Between 1980 and 1984 nine adult patients in the renal unit of Guy's Hospital developed bone and joint infection. The commonest site of infection was the spine. In this series two patients died, a mortality of 22%. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of bone and joint infection in patients with renal failure and renal transplants

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of α defensin (AD) lateral flow assay (LFA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to conventional synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) analysis. Methods. Patients undergoing joint aspiration for evaluation of pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) were considered for inclusion. Synovial fluids from 99 patients (25 THA and 74 TKA) were analyzed by WBC count and PMN% analysis, AD LFA, and AD ELISA. WBC and PMN% cutoffs of ≥ 1,700 cells/mm. 3. and ≥ 65% for TKA and ≥ 3,000 cells/mm. 3. and ≥ 80% for THA were used, respectively. A panel of three physicians, all with expertise in orthopaedic infections and who were blinded to the results of AD tests, independently reviewed patient data to diagnose subjects as with or without PJI. Consensus PJI classification was used as the reference standard to evaluate test performances. Results were compared using McNemar’s test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Results. Expert consensus classified 18 arthroplasies as having failed due to PJI and 81 due to aseptic failure. Using these classifications, the calculated sensitivity and specificity of AD LFA was 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6 to 96.4) and 93.8% (95% CI 86.2 to 98.0), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of AD ELISA was 83.3% (95% CI 58.6 to 96.4) and 96.3% (95% CI 89.6 to 99.2), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between sensitivity (p = 1.000) or specificity (p = 0.157) of the two AD assays. AUC for AD LFA was 0.891. In comparison, AUC for synovial WBC count, PMN%, and the combination of the two values was 0.821 (sensitivity p = 1.000, specificity p < 0.001), 0.886 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.011), and 0.926 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.317), respectively. Conclusion. The diagnostic accuracy of synovial AD for PJI diagnosis is comparable and not statistically superior to that of synovial WBC count plus PMN% combined. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1119–1126

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: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1450–2

Aims. To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less than two years. Patients and Methods. Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published algorithm. Results. DAIR was performed as part of a curative procedure in 46 hips in 42 patients. The mean age was 73.2 years (44.6 to 87.7), including 20 women and 22 men. In 34 hips in 32 patients (73.9%), PJI was confirmed. In 12 hips, the criteria for PJI were not fulfilled and antibiotics stopped. In 41 (89.1%) of all hips and in 32 (94.1%) of the confirmed PJIs, all criteria for DAIR were fulfilled. In patients with exogenous PJI, DAIR was performed not more than three days after referral. In haematogenous infections, the duration of symptoms did not exceed 21 days. In 28 hips, a single debridement and in six hips two surgical debridements were required. In 28 (87.5%) of 32 patients, the total treatment duration was three months. Failure was noted in three hips (9%). Long-term follow-up results (mean 4.0 years, 1.4 to 10) were available in 30 of 34 (88.2%) confirmed PJIs. The overall successful outcome rate was 91% in 34 hips, and 90% in 30 hips with long-term follow-up results. . Conclusion. Prompt surgical treatment with DAIR, following strict diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, in patients with suspected periprosthetic joint infection, can lead to high rates of success in eradicating the infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:330–6

Objectives. The objective of this study was to develop a test for the rapid (within 25 minutes) intraoperative detection of bacteria from synovial fluid to diagnose periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. The 16s rDNA test combines a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for amplification of 16s rDNA with a lateral flow immunoassay in one fully automated system. The synovial fluid of 77 patients undergoing joint aspiration or primary or revision total hip or knee surgery was prospectively collected. The cohort was divided into a proof-of-principle cohort (n = 17) and a validation cohort (n = 60). Using the proof-of-principle cohort, an optimal cut-off for the discrimination between PJI and non-PJI samples was determined. PJI was defined as detection of the same bacterial species in a minimum of two microbiological samples, positive histology, and presence of a sinus tract or intra-articular pus. Results. The 16s rDNA test proved to be very robust and was able to provide a result in 97% of all samples within 25 minutes. The 16s rDNA test was able to diagnose PJI with a sensitivity of 87.5% and 82%, and a specificity of 100% and 89%, in the proof-of-principle and validation cohorts, respectively. The microbiological culture of synovial fluid achieved a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 93% in the validation cohort. Conclusion. The 16s rDNA test offers reliable intraoperative detection of all bacterial species within 25 minutes with a sensitivity and specificity comparable with those of conventional microbiological culture of synovial fluid for the detection of PJI. The 16s rDNA test performance is independent of possible blood contamination, culture time and bacterial species. Cite this article: V. Janz, J. Schoon, C. Morgenstern, B. Preininger, S. Reinke, G. Duda, A. Breitbach, C. F. Perka, S. Geissler. Rapid detection of periprosthetic joint infection using a combination of 16s rDNA polymerase chain reaction and lateral flow immunoassay: A Pilot Study. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:12–19. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0103.R2

Aims. Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all DAIRs, performed for confirmed infected primary hip arthropasty (n = 82) at out institution, between 1997 and 2013. Data recorded included full patient information and type of surgery. Outcome measures included complications, mortality, implant survivorship and functional outcome. Outcome was compared with two control groups matched for gender and age; a cohort of primary THAs (n = 120) and a cohort of two-stage revisions for infection (n = 66). Results. Mean age at DAIR was 69 years (33 to 87) and mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 17; standard deviation (. sd). 5). A total of 52 (63%) of DAIRs were for early PJI (less than six weeks). Greater success in the eradication of infection with DAIR was identified with early PJI, comprising an interval less than a week between onset of symptoms and exchange of modular components with the DAIR procedure. Eradication of infection, complications and re-operation rates were similar in the DAIR and two-stage revision groups. For hips with successful eradication of infection with DAIR, the five-year survival (98%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100) was similar to the primary THA group (98%; 95% CI 95 to 100) (n = 43; p = 0.3). The DAIR group had inferior mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) (38; 12 to 48) compared with the primary THA group (42; 15 to 48) (p = 0.02) but a significantly better mean OHS compared with the two-stage revision group (31; 0 to 48) (p = 0.008). Patients who required only one DAIR for eradication of infection had a similar mean OHS (41; 20 to 48) to the primary THA group (p = 0.2). Conclusion. The DAIR procedure is associated with a similar complication rate and ability to eradicate infection as two-stage revision. This study emphasises the need for exchange of modular components for improved chances of eradication of infection. This is the first study showing that DAIR is better than a two-stage revision regarding functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:614–22

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines, if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in the United States.

Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):3–10.

Aims

To investigate the outcomes of treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) involving total knee and hip arthroplasties.

The June 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee; Predicted waiting times for orthopaedic surgery: an urgent need to address the deficit in capacity; Vascular impulse technology versus elevation for reducing the swelling of upper and lower limb joint fractures; Desperate patients will accept higher risks; How long does it take to find a positive culture in periprosthetic joint infection?

Aims. This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection. Methods. A total of 1,171 total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients with MoM articulations from August 2000 to March 2014 were retrospectively identified. Of those, 328 patients underwent metal artefact reduction sequence MRI and had minimum two years’ clinical follow-up, and met our inclusion criteria. Data collected included demographic details, surgical indication, laterality, implants used, history of pseudotumour, and their corresponding preoperative ESR (mm/hr) and CRP (mg/dl) levels. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to evaluate PJI and history of pseudotumour, and receiver operating characteristic curves were created to assess the diagnostic capabilities of ESR and CRP to determine the presence of infection in patients undergoing revision surgery. Results. The rate of PJI for all identified MoM THAs was 3.5% (41/1,171), with a mean follow-up of 10.9 years (2.0 to 20.4). Of the patients included in the final cohort, 8.2% (27/328) had PJI, with a mean follow-up of 12.2 years (2.3 to 20.4). Among this cohort, 31.1% (102/328) had a history of pseudotumour. The rate of PJI in these patients was 14.7% (15/102), which was greater than those without pseudotumour, 5.3% (12/226) (p = 0.008). Additionally, logistic regression analysis showed an association between history of pseudotumour and PJI (odds ratio 4.36 (95% confidence interval 1.77 to 11.3); p = 0.002). Optimal diagnostic cutoffs for PJI in patients with history of pseudotumour versus those without were 33.1 mm/hr and 24.5 mm/hr for ESR and 7.37 mg/dl and 1.88 mg/dl for CRP, respectively. Conclusion. Patients with history of pseudotumour secondary to MoM THA had a higher likelihood of infection than those without. While suspicion of infection should be high for these patients, ESR and CRP cutoffs published by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society may not be appropriate for patients with a history of pseudotumour, as ESR and CRP levels suggestive of PJI are likely to be higher than for those without a pseudotumour. Additional investigation, such as aspiration, is highly recommended for these patients unless clinical suspicion and laboratory markers are low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):555–564

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar