The aim of this study was to assess the role of synovial C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic hip infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid from 89 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and measured synovial CRP, serum CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and synovial percentages of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN). Patients were classified as septic or aseptic by means of clinical, microbiological, serum and synovial fluid findings. The high viscosity of the synovial fluid precluded the analyses in nine patients permitting the results in 80 patients to be studied. There was a significant difference in synovial CRP levels between the septic (n = 21) and the aseptic (n = 59) cohort. According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, a synovial CRP threshold of 2.5 mg/l had a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 93.3%. The area under the curve was 0.96. Compared with serum CRP and ESR, synovial CRP showed a high diagnostic value. According to these preliminary results, synovial CRP may be a useful parameter in diagnosing chronic periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:173–6

Aims

Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants.

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.

We have analysed the management and clinical outcome of a series of consecutive patients who had a total hip replacement and developed post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The incidence of this infection was 1% over a period of five years. We studied SSI in 15 patients (16 infections) with a mean age of 72.7 years (53 to 81). In all, 12 of the infections occurred early and half of the infections involved the prosthesis, resulting in an increase of 11-fold in the cumulative hospital stay.

Methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus was successfully eradicated in all the patients after a mean follow-up of 53.6 months (25 to 88). Superficial incisional infections resolved after antibiotic therapy alone while deep infections required multiple operative debridements. Attempted retention of the implant in early organ space infections was successful in only one of five patients. Only three patients with implant-level infections obtained a pain-free, functional prosthesis while a further three required excision arthroplasty. We have formulated a protocol of treatment which may serve as a guide in the management of these infections.