Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) when adequate methods of culture are used, and to evaluate the outcome in patients who were treated with antibiotics for a culture-negative PJI compared with those in whom antibiotics were withheld. Methods. A multicentre observational study was undertaken: 1,553 acute and 1,556 chronic PJIs, diagnosed between 2013 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. Culture-negative PJIs were diagnosed according to the Muskuloskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), International Consensus Meeting (ICM), and European Bone and Joint Society (EBJIS) definitions. The primary outcome was recurrent infection, and the secondary outcome was removal of the prosthetic components for any indication, both during a follow-up period of two years. Results. None of the acute PJIs and 70 of the chronic PJIs (4.7%) were culture-negative; a total of 36 culture-negative PJIs (51%) were treated with antibiotics, particularly those with histological signs of infection. After two years of follow-up, no recurrent infections occurred in patients in whom antibiotics were withheld. The requirement for removal of the components for any indication during follow-up was not significantly different in those who received antibiotics compared with those in whom antibiotics were withheld (7.1% vs 2.9%; p = 0.431). Conclusion. When adequate methods of culture are used, the incidence of culture-negative PJIs is low. In patients with culture-negative PJI, antibiotic treatment can probably be withheld if there are no histological signs of infection. In all other patients, diagnostic efforts should be made to identify the causative microorganism by means of serology or molecular techniques. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):183–188

Aims

Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach.

Peri-prosthetic osteolysis and subsequent aseptic loosening is the most common reason for revising total hip replacements. Wear particles originating from the prosthetic components interact with multiple cell types in the peri-prosthetic region resulting in an inflammatory process that ultimately leads to peri-prosthetic bone loss. These cells include macrophages, osteoclasts, osteoblasts and fibroblasts. The majority of research in peri-prosthetic osteolysis has concentrated on the role played by osteoclasts and macrophages. The purpose of this review is to assess the role of the osteoblast in peri-prosthetic osteolysis. In peri-prosthetic osteolysis, wear particles may affect osteoblasts and contribute to the osteolytic process by two mechanisms. First, particles and metallic ions have been shown to inhibit the osteoblast in terms of its ability to secrete mineralised bone matrix, by reducing calcium deposition, alkaline phosphatase activity and its ability to proliferate. Secondly, particles and metallic ions have been shown to stimulate osteoblasts to produce pro inflammatory mediators in vitro. In vivo, these mediators have the potential to attract pro-inflammatory cells to the peri-prosthetic area and stimulate osteoclasts to absorb bone. Further research is needed to fully define the role of the osteoblast in peri-prosthetic osteolysis and to explore its potential role as a therapeutic target in this condition. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1021–5