To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI). A retrospective cohort study of 50 chronic kPJI patients treated with two types of articulating spacers between January 2014 and March 2022 was conducted. The clinical outcomes and functional status of the different articulating spacers were compared. Overall, 17 patients were treated with prosthetic spacers (prosthetic group (PG)), and 33 patients were treated with cement spacers (cement group (CG)). The CG had a longer mean follow-up period (46.67 months (SD 26.61)) than the PG (24.82 months (SD 16.46); p = 0.001).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in detecting pathogens from synovial fluid of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) patients. A group of 75 patients who underwent revision knee or hip arthroplasties were enrolled prospectively. Ten patients with primary arthroplasties were included as negative controls. Synovial fluid was collected for mNGS analysis. Optimal thresholds were determined to distinguish pathogens from background microbes. Synovial fluid, tissue, and sonicate fluid were obtained for culture.Aims
Methods
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common cause of arthroplasty failure. However, infection is often difficult to detect by conventional bacterial cultures, for which false-negative rates are 23% to 35%. In contrast, 16S rRNA metagenomics has been shown to quantitatively detect unculturable, unsuspected, and unviable pathogens. In this study, we investigated the use of 16S rRNA metagenomics for detection of bacterial pathogens in synovial fluid (SF) from patients with hip or knee PJI. We analyzed the bacterial composition of 22 SF samples collected from 11 patients with PJIs (first- and second-stage surgery). The V3 and V4 region of bacteria was assessed by comparing the taxonomic distribution of the 16S rDNA amplicons with microbiome sequencing analysis. We also compared the results of bacterial detection from different methods including 16S metagenomics, traditional cultures, and targeted Sanger sequencing.Objectives
Methods
