Periprosthetic Infection in Joint Replacement Diagnosis and Treatment

Background: The volume of joint replacement surgery has risen steadily in recent years, because the population is aging and increasingly wishes to preserve a high functional status onward into old age. Infection is among the more common complications of joint replacement surgery, arising in 0.2% to 2% of patients, or as many as 9% in special situations such as the implantation of megaprostheses. The associated morbidity and mortality are high. It is thus very important to minimize risk factors for infection and to optimize the relevant diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Methods: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, including current guidelines and expert recommendations. Results: The crucial diagnostic step is joint biopsy for the identification of the pathogenic organism, which succeeds with over 90% sensitivity and specificity. If the prosthesis is firmly anchored in bone, the pathogen is of a type that responds well to treatment, and symptomatic infection has been present only for a short time, then rapidly initiated treatment can save the prosthesis in 35-90% of cases. The pillars of treatment are thorough surgical care (radical debridement) and targeted antibiotic therapy. On the other hand, if the prosthesis is loose or the pathogen is of a poorly treatable type, the infection can generally only be cured by a change of the prosthesis. This can be performed in either one or two procedures, always in conjunction with systemic antibiotic therapy tailored to the specific sensitivity and resistance pattern of the pathogen. Conclusion: The risk of infection of an artificial joint is low, but the overall prevalence of such infections is significant, as the number of implanted joints is steadily rising. Artificial joint infections should be treated by a standardized algorithm oriented toward the recommendations of current guidelines. Many of these recommendations, however, are based only on expert opinion, as informative studies providing high-grade evidence are lacking. Thus, for any particular clinical situation, there may now be multiple therapeutic approaches with apparently comparable efficacy. Randomized trials are urgently needed

Endoscopic Facet Joint Denervation on the Lumbar Spine: A Retrospective Analysis

Study design: This single-center retrospective study analyzed patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who underwent endoscopic facet joint denervation (EFJD) between April 2018 and May 2019. Purpose: This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of EFJD in treating CLBP. Overview of literature: CLBP is a challenging burden to healthcare systems worldwide. As up to 45% of cases originate from the lumbar facet joints, sufficient therapy strategies must be developed. EFJD offers a precise depiction of the dorsal medial ramus and the facet joint capsule. Methods: In this study, 64 patients who underwent EFJD were included. The main outcome of interest was patients' Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, which was recorded at 3-time points (i.e., before operation and 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery). Results: EFJD effectively reduced the VAS pain scores by 58% in the short term (6 weeks) and 38% in the long term (12 months). Patients with isolated facet joint osteoarthritis benefited more (p <0.001). Conclusions: EFJD is a good treatment alternative for CLBP originating from the facet joints, particularly in patients with isolated facet joint osteoarthritis. Moreover, this method can address not only the dorsal medial ramus but also the surrounding tissue (e.g., facet joint capsule, facet joint effusion, and osteophytes) as the origin of CLBP