Objectives. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods. We searched two literature databases, using terms that encompass all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, as well as PJI and statistical terms reflecting diagnostic parameters. The findings are summarized as a narrative review. Results. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were the two most commonly published serum biomarkers. Most evidence did not identify other serum biomarkers that are clearly superior to ESR and CRP. Other serum biomarkers have not demonstrated superior sensitivity and have failed to replace CRP and ESR as first-line screening tests. D-dimer appears to be a promising biomarker, but more research is necessary. Factors that influence serum biomarkers include temporal trends, stage of revision, and implant-related factors (metallosis). Conclusion. Our review helped to identify factors that can influence serum biomarkers’ level changes; the recognition of such factors can help improve their diagnostic utility. As such, we cannot rely on ESR and CRP alone for the diagnosis of PJI prior to second-stage reimplantation, or in metal-on-metal or corrosion cases. The future of serum biomarkers will likely shift towards using genomics and proteomics to identify proteins transcribed via messenger RNA in response to infection and sepsis. Cite this article: A. Saleh, J. George, M. Faour, A. K. Klika, C. A. Higuera. Serum biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infections. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:85–93. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0323

Aims. We wished to quantify the extent of soft-tissue damage sustained during minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior (DA) and direct superior (DS) approaches. Materials and Methods. In eight cadavers, the DA approach was performed on one side, and the DS approach on the other, a single brand of uncemented hip prosthesis was implanted by two surgeons, considered expert in their surgical approaches. Subsequent reflection of the gluteus maximus allowed the extent of muscle and tendon damage to be measured and the percentage damage to each anatomical structure to be calculated. Results. The DA approach caused substantially greater damage to the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon when compared with the DS approach (t-test, p = 0.049 and 0.003, respectively). The tensor fascia lata and rectus femoris muscles were damaged only in the DA approach. There was no difference in the amount of damage to the gluteus medius muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon, obturator internus tendon, obturator externus tendon or quadratus femoris muscle between approaches. The posterior soft-tissue releases of the DA approach damaged the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon and obturator internus tendon. Conclusion. The DS approach caused less soft-tissue damage than the DA approach. However the clinical relevance is unknown. Further clinical outcome studies, radiographic evaluation of component position, gait analyses and serum biomarker levels are necessary to evaluate and corroborate the safety and efficacy of the DS approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B1036–42

Aims

Current diagnostic tools are not always able to effectively identify periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Recent studies suggest that circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) undergo changes under pathological conditions such as infection. The aim of this study was to analyze miRNA expression in hip arthroplasty PJI patients.