Molecular diagnostics in periprosthetic joint infection.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant and costly challenge to the orthopedic community. The lack of a gold standard for diagnosis remains the biggest obstacle in the detection and subsequent treatment of PJI. Molecular markers in the serum and joint fluid aspirate hold immense promise to enhance the development of a firm diagnostic criterion. The primary goal is one marker with high sensitivity and specificity. Here, we review our current research efforts in the field of molecular markers: C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, white blood cells, and leukocyte esterase. Each marker has been studied to determine its sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in diagnosing PJI

Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the current knowledge: AAOS exhibit selection.

Periprosthetic joint infection continues to frustrate the medical community. Although the demand for total joint arthroplasty is increasing, the burden of such infections is increasing even more rapidly, and they pose a unique challenge because their accurate diagnosis and eradication can prove elusive. This review describes the current knowledge regarding diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. A number of tools are available to aid in establishing a diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. These include the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum C-reactive protein concentration, synovial white blood-cell count and differential, imaging studies, tissue specimen culturing, and histological analysis. Multiple definitions of periprosthetic joint infection have been proposed but there is no consensus. Tools under investigation to diagnose such infections include the C-reactive protein concentration in the joint fluid, point-of-care strip tests for the leukocyte esterase concentration in the joint fluid, and other molecular markers of periprosthetic joint infection. Treatment options include irrigation and debridement with prosthesis retention, one-stage prosthesis exchange, two-stage prosthesis exchange with intervening placement of an antibiotic-loaded spacer, and salvage treatments such as joint arthrodesis and amputation. Treatment selection is dependent on multiple factors including the timing of the symptom onset, patient health, the infecting organism, and a history of infection in the joint. Although prosthesis retention has the theoretical advantages of decreased morbidity and improved return to function, two-stage exchange provides a lower rate of recurrent infection. As the burden of periprosthetic joint infection increases, the orthopaedic and medical community should become more familiar with the disease. It is hoped that the tools currently under investigation will aid clinicians in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection in an accurate and timely fashion to allow appropriate treatment. Given the current knowledge and planned future research, the medical community should be prepared to effectively manage this increasingly prevalent disease

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Infection should be Ruled Out in All Cases

We hypothesized that some aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty failures are indeed caused by occult infection. This prospective study recruited 65 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty. The mean follow-up period was 19 months. Collected synovial fluid was analyzed by Ibis T5000 biosensor (Abbott Molecular Inc, Ill; a multiplex polymerase chain reaction technology). Cases were considered as infected or aseptic based on the surgeon\u27s judgment and Ibis findings. Based on Ibis biosensor, 17 aseptic cases were indeed infected that had been missed. Of these 17 cases, 2 developed infection after the index revision. A considerable number of so-called aseptic failures seem to be occult infections that were not adequately investigated and/or miscategorized as aseptic failure. We recommend that all patients undergoing revision arthroplasty be investigated for periprosthetic joint infection. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: is there evidence that cementless fixation is better?

BACKGROUND: The use of cementless acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity over the past decade. Most total hip arthroplasties being performed in North America currently use cementless acetabular components. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survivorship and revision rate of cemented and cementless acetabular components utilized in total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A primary literature search in PubMed identified 3488 articles, of which 3407 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded. Only English-language articles on either the survivorship or revision rate of primary total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up were included. The present study analyzed forty-five articles reporting the long-term outcome of cementless acetabular components, twenty-nine reporting the outcome of cemented acetabular components, and seven comparing cemented and cementless acetabular components. Meta-analysis (with a random-effects model) was performed on the data from the seven comparative studies, and study-level logistic regression analysis (with a quasibinomial model) was performed on the pooled data on the eighty-one included articles to determine a consensus. The studies were weighted according to the number of total hip arthroplasties performed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis did not reveal any effect of the type of acetabular component fixation on either survivorship or revision rate. The regression analysis revealed the estimated odds ratio for survivorship of a cemented acetabular component to be 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.40; p = 0.002) when adjustments for factors including age, sex, and mean duration of follow-up were made. CONCLUSIONS: The preference for cementless acetabular components on the basis of improved survivorship is not supported by the published evidence. Although concerns regarding aseptic loosening of cemented acetabular components may have led North American surgeons toward the nearly exclusive use of cementless acetabular components, the available literature suggests that the fixation of cemented acetabular components is more reliable than that of cementless components beyond the first postoperative decade

Successful identification of pathogens by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based electron spray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-TOF-MS) in culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection poses many challenges, one of which is the difficulty of isolating the infecting organism. Recently, a sophisticated modality (the Ibis Biosciences T5000 biosensor system) has been introduced that uses pan-domain primers in a series of polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) to identify and speciate essentially all bacteria and fungi as well as to identify key antibiotic resistance genes. We investigated the role of the Ibis in identifying infecting organisms in cases of known and suspected periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Synovial fluid specimens were collected prospectively from eighty-two patients undergoing eighty-seven arthroplasty procedures (sixty-five knee revisions, fifteen hip revisions, and seven primary knee arthroplasties) and were sent for both conventional culture and Ibis analysis. The surgeon\u27s clinical determination of the cause for revision arthroplasty was failure due to infection in twenty-three cases and noninfectious failure in fifty-seven cases. RESULTS: In the twenty-three cases that were considered on clinical grounds to involve a periprosthetic joint infection, the Ibis detected the same pathogen isolated by conventional culture in seventeen of eighteen cases and also detected one or more organisms in four of the five culture-negative cases. In addition, the Ibis detected organisms in fifty (88%) of the fifty-seven cases in which revision arthroplasty was performed for a presumed noninfectious failure. CONCLUSIONS: The Ibis technology was not only effective at detecting organisms in cases of suspected periprosthetic joint infection in which cultures were negative, but it also suggested that many of the revision arthroplasty cases that have previously been considered to be purely aseptic may have a component of unrecognized, subclinical infection

The infected hip: A treatment algorithm

The management of periprosthetic joint infection following total joint arthroplasty is presently a major challenge to orthopedic surgeons. Despite various treatment options available, the two-stage revision procedure is most often chosen in North America because of a high success rate, especially in cases involving resistant organisms. Sometimes the use of antibiotics alone, irrigation with debridement, or a one-stage exchange may be a more appropriate treatment option. Various factors such as the status of a patient’s immune system, time of onset of the infection, as well as susceptibility of causative microorganism should be considered as they play an important role in effectiveness of treatment. When surgery presents a great risk to patients due to their level of health, and infection is caused by a low-virulent antimicrobial susceptible pathogen, antibiotic suppression alone may be the best treatment option. If the patient can successfully undergo surgery then an irrigation and debridement procedure may be preferred, especially with an acute onset of symptoms. If onset of symptoms is much later as in chronic cases, or irrigation and debridement procedure is unsuccessful, then resection of all components and reimplantation is necessary. In a two-stage revision, placement of an antibiotic-loaded spacer is needed to eradicate the infection before reimplantation takes place. There are rare cases in which salvage procedures, such as arthrodesis or amputation, are necessary to completely eradicate an uncontrollable infection in immunocompromised patients