Aims. To investigate the outcomes of treatment of streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) involving total knee and hip arthroplasties. Patients and Methods. Streptococcal PJI episodes which occurred between January 2009 and December 2015 were identified from clinical databases. Presentation and clinical outcomes for 30 streptococcal PJIs in 30 patients (12 hip and 18 knee arthroplasties) following treatment were evaluated from the medical notes and at review. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to estimate the probability of infection-free survival. The influence of the biofilm active antibiotic rifampin was also assessed. Results. The infection was thought to have been acquired haematogenously in 16 patients and peri-operatively in 14. The median follow-up time for successfully treated cases was 39.2 months (12 to 75), whereas failure of the treatment occurred within the first year following treatment on every occasion. The infection-free survival at three years with 12 patients at risk was 59% (95% confidence interval 39% to 75%). Failure of the treatment was observed in ten of 22 PJIs (45%) treated with a two-stage revision arthroplasty, two of six (33%) treated by debridement and prosthesis retention, and in neither of the two PJIs treated with one-stage revision arthroplasty. Streptococcal PJI treated with or without rifampin included in the antibiotic regime showed no difference in treatment outcome (p = 0.175). Conclusion. The success of treatment of streptococcal PJI in our patient cohort was poor (18 of 30 cases, 59%). New therapeutic approaches for treating streptococcal PJI are needed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:653–9

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of transferring patients to a specialized arthroplasty centre between the first and second stages (interstage) of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. Patients and Methods. A search of our institutional database was performed to identify patients having undergone two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for PJI. Two cohorts were created: continuous care (CC) and transferred care (TC). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between cohorts. Results. A total of 137 patients were identified: 105 in the CC cohort (56 men, 49 women; mean age 67.9) and 32 in the TC cohort (17 men, 15 women; mean age 67.8 years). PJI organism virulence was greater in the CC cohort (36.2% vs 15.6%; p = 0.030). TC patients had a higher rate of persisting or recurrent infection (53.6% vs 13.4%; p < 0.001), soft-tissue complications (31.3 vs 14.3%; p = 0.030), and reduced requirement for porous metal augments (78.1% vs 94.3%; p = 0.006). Repeat first stage debridement after transfer led to greater need for plastic surgical procedures (58.3% vs 0.0%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Patient transfer during the interstage of treatment for infected TKA leads to poorer outcomes compared with patients receiving all their treatment at a specialized arthroplasty centre. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1087–1092

Aims. To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less than two years. Patients and Methods. Patients in whom DAIR was performed were identified from our hip arthroplasty register (between 2004 and 2013). Adherence to criteria for DAIR was assessed according to a previously published algorithm. Results. DAIR was performed as part of a curative procedure in 46 hips in 42 patients. The mean age was 73.2 years (44.6 to 87.7), including 20 women and 22 men. In 34 hips in 32 patients (73.9%), PJI was confirmed. In 12 hips, the criteria for PJI were not fulfilled and antibiotics stopped. In 41 (89.1%) of all hips and in 32 (94.1%) of the confirmed PJIs, all criteria for DAIR were fulfilled. In patients with exogenous PJI, DAIR was performed not more than three days after referral. In haematogenous infections, the duration of symptoms did not exceed 21 days. In 28 hips, a single debridement and in six hips two surgical debridements were required. In 28 (87.5%) of 32 patients, the total treatment duration was three months. Failure was noted in three hips (9%). Long-term follow-up results (mean 4.0 years, 1.4 to 10) were available in 30 of 34 (88.2%) confirmed PJIs. The overall successful outcome rate was 91% in 34 hips, and 90% in 30 hips with long-term follow-up results. . Conclusion. Prompt surgical treatment with DAIR, following strict diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, in patients with suspected periprosthetic joint infection, can lead to high rates of success in eradicating the infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:330–6

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

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. Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years. Methods. Using the database of a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome. Results. The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner. Conclusion. When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66–72

Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition. Methods. This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance. Results. This process evolved a three-level approach to the diagnostic continuum, resulting in a definition set and guidance, which has been fully endorsed by EBJIS, MSIS, and ESGIAI. Conclusion. The definition presents a novel three-level approach to diagnosis, based on the most robust evidence, which will be useful to clinicians in daily practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):18–25

Aims. α-defensin is a biomarker which has been described as having a high degree of accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current meta-analyses are based on the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay rather than the quick on-table lateral flow test kit. This study is the first meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay and the lateral flow test kit for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies where the diagnosis of PJI was uncertain. All studies selected used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) or modified MSIS criteria. Two independent reviewers reviewed the studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis of results was carried out: pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, heterogeneity and areas under curves are reported. Results. Ten studies (759 patients) were included. Of these, seven studies (640 patients) evaluated the laboratory-based α-defensin immunoassay and three (119 patients) the lateral flow test. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the qualitative α-defensin laboratory immunoassay was 0.953 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.984) and 0.965 (95% CI 0.943 to 0.979) respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 34.86 (95% CI 19.34 to 62.85) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.11). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were 0.774 (95% CI 0.637 to 0.870) and 0.913 (95% CI 0.828 to 0.958), respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR were 8.675 (95% CI 4.229 to 17.794) and 0.248 (95% CI 0.147 to 0.418), respectively. Conclusion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were lower than those of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay test. Hence, care must be taken with interpretation of the lateral flow test when relying on its results for the intra-operative diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:66–72

Aims. To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. This retrospective cohort study comprised 18,979 consecutive hip and knee arthroplasties from a single high-volume academic hospital. At a median of 5.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5 to 8.1), all deaths and revisions were counted. To overcome the competing risk of death, competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was applied to analyze the association between different stages of CKD and revisions. Confounding factors such as diabetes and BMI were considered using either a stratified CIF or the Fine and Gray model. Results. There were 2,111 deaths (11.1%) and 677 revisions (3.6%) during the follow-up period. PJI was the reason for revision in 162 cases (0.9%). For hip arthroplasty, 3.5% of patients with CKD stage 1 (i.e. normal kidney function, NKF), 3.8% with CKD stage 2, 4.2% with CKD stage 3, and 0% with CKD stage 4 to 5 had undergone revision within eight years. For knee arthroplasty, 4.7% with NKF, 2.7% with CKD stage 2, 2.4% with CKD stage 3, and 7% of CKD stage 4 to 5 had had undergone revision. With the exception of knee arthroplasty patients in whom normal kidney function was associated with a greater probability of all-cause revision, there were no major differences in the rates of all-cause revisions or revisions due to PJIs between different CKD stages. The results remained unchanged when diabetes and BMI were considered. Conclusion. We found no strong evidence that CKD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause or PJI-related revision. Selection bias probably explains the increased amount of all-cause revision operations in knee arthroplasty patients with normal kidney function. The effect of stage 4 to 5 CKD was difficult to evaluate because of the small number of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):689–695

Aims. The purpose of this current multicentre study is to analyse the presence of alpha-defensin proteins in synovial fluid using the Synovasure lateral flow device and to determine its diagnostic reliability and accuracy compared with the prosthetic joint infection (PJI) criteria produced by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS). Patients and Methods. A cohort of 121 patients comprising 85 total knee arthroplasties and 36 total hip arthroplasties was prospectively evaluated between May 2015 and June 2016 in three different orthopaedic centres. The tests were performed on patients with a chronically painful prosthesis undergoing a joint aspiration in a diagnostic pathway or during revision surgery. Results. Based on the MSIS criteria, 34 patients (28%) would have had a PJI, and 87 patients had no PJI. Testing with the lateral flow device had a sensitivity of 97.1% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 84.5 to 99.9) and a specificity of 96.6% (95% CI 90.3 to 99.2). The positive predictive value was 91.7% (95% CI 77.7% to 98.3), and the negative predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI 93.6 to 99.9). Receiver operator characteristics analysis demonstrated an area under the curve for the Synovasure test of 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.00). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the Synovasure test has an excellent diagnostic performance to confirm or reject the diagnosis of a PJI. The results are promising for the care of the painful or problematic knee and hip joint arthroplasty and the test should be considered as part of the diagnostic toolbox for PJIs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1176–82

Aims. It can be extremely challenging to determine whether to perform reimplantation in patients who have contradictory serum inflammatory markers and frozen section results. We investigated whether patients with a positive frozen section at reimplantation were at a higher risk of reinfection despite normal ESR and CRP. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 163 consecutive patients with periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) who had normal ESR and CRP results pre-reimplantation in our hospital from 2014 to 2018. Of these patients, 26 had positive frozen sections at reimplantation. The minimum follow-up time was two years unless reinfection occurred within this period. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association between positive frozen sections and treatment failure. Results. Treatment failure occurred in eight (30.77%) of the 26 PJI patients with positive frozen sections at reimplantation, compared with 13 (9.49%) of 137 patients with negative results. In the multivariate analysis, positive frozen section increased the risk of failure (odds ratio 4.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 13.45). The mean number of months to reinfection was lower in the positive frozen section group than in the control group (p = 0.041). While there were nine (34.62%) patients with positive frozen section and 25 (18.25%) patients with negative frozen section who had prolonged antibiotic use (p = 0.042), the mean duration of antibiotic use was comparable in two groups. Synovial white blood cell count (p = 0.137) and polymorphonuclear leucocyte percentage (p = 0.454) were not associated with treatment failure in logistic regression model. Conclusion. Positive frozen section at reimplantation was independently associated with subsequent failure and earlier reinfection, despite normal ESR and CRP levels pre-reimplantation. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of treatment failure in patients with positive frozen sections and carefully consider benefits of reimplantation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):916–922

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):423–429

The treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the ankle is not standardised. It is not clear whether an algorithm developed for hip and knee PJI can be used in the management of PJI of the ankle. We evaluated the outcome, at two or more years post-operatively, in 34 patients with PJI of the ankle, identified from a cohort of 511 patients who had undergone total ankle replacement. Their median age was 62.1 years (53.3 to 68.2), and 20 patients were women. Infection was exogenous in 28 (82.4%) and haematogenous in six (17.6%); 19 (55.9%) were acute infections and 15 (44.1%) chronic. Staphylococci were the cause of 24 infections (70.6%). Surgery with retention of one or both components was undertaken in 21 patients (61.8%), both components were replaced in ten (29.4%), and arthrodesis was undertaken in three (8.8%). An infection-free outcome with satisfactory function of the ankle was obtained in 23 patients (67.6%). The best rate of cure followed the exchange of both components (9/10, 90%). In the 21 patients in whom one or both components were retained, four had a relapse of the same infecting organism and three had an infection with another organism. Hence the rate of cure was 66.7% (14 of 21). In these 21 patients, we compared the treatment given to an algorithm developed for the treatment of PJI of the knee and hip. In 17 (80.9%) patients, treatment was not according to the algorithm. Most (11 of 17) had only one criterion against retention of one or both components. In all, ten of 11 patients with severe soft-tissue compromise as a single criterion had a relapse-free survival. We propose that the treatment concept for PJI of the ankle requires adaptation of the grading of quality of the soft tissues. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:772–7

Aims. Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI. Material and Methods. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions. Results. The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions. . Conclusion. We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus

Aims. We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 96 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI. The mean follow-up was 90 months (SD 32). Septic failure was assessed using a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any further surgery undertaken for aseptic mechanical causes was considered as aseptic failure. The cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis was used to predict the risk of septic failure. A regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic failure. The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was also analyzed. Results. There were 23 septic failures at final follow-up, with a cumulative incidence of 14% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8% to 22%) at one year, 18% (95% CI 11% to 27%) at two years, 22% (95% CI 14% to 31%) at five years, and 23% (95% CI 15% to 33%) at ten years. Having at least one positive culture (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.19 to 4.74); p = 0.013), or a positive intraoperative frozen section (HR 2.55 (IQR 1.06 to 6.15); p = 0.037) was significantly associated with septic failure after reimplantation. With dislocation being the most common cause of aseptic revision (5.2%), the cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 1% (95% CI 0% to 5%) at one year, 6% (95% CI 1% to 8%) at five years, and 8% (95%CI 3% to 17%) at ten years. Conclusion. If there is no recurrent infection in the five years following reimplantation, the chances of further infection thereafter are remote. While the results of a frozen section may be a reliable guide to the timing of reimplantation, intraoperative culture has, currently, only prognostic value. Surgeons should be aware that instability remains a potential indication for further revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):79–86

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicates between 0.5% and 1.2% primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and may have devastating consequences. The traditional assessment of patients suffering from PJI has involved the serological study of inflammatory markers and microbiological analysis of samples obtained from the joint space. Treatment has involved debridement and revision arthroplasty performed in either one or two stages. . We present an update on the burden of PJI, strategies for its diagnosis and treatment, the challenge of resistant organisms and the need for definitive evidence to guide the treatment of PJI after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):27–30

Aims. The aims of this study were to increase the diagnostic accuracy of the analysis of synovial fluid in the differentiation of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) by the addition of inexpensive biomarkers such as the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), adenosine deaminase (ADA), alpha-2-macrogloblulin (α2M) and procalcitonin. Patients and Methods. Between January 2013 and December 2015, synovial fluid and removed implants were requested from 143 revision total joint arthroplasties. A total of 55 patients met inclusion criteria of the receipt of sufficient synovial fluid, tissue samples and removed implants for analysis. The diagnosis of PJI followed the definition from a recent International Consensus Meeting to create two groups of patients; septic and aseptic. Using receiver operating characteristic curves we determined the cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy for each marker. Results. There were 23 PJIs and 32 patients with aseptic loosening. The levels of total leucocyte count, proportion of polymorphonuclear leucocytes (PMNs), CRP, ADA and α2M in the synovial fluid were all significantly higher in those with a PJI than in those with aseptic loosening. The levels of procalcitonin were comparable in the two groups. Cutoff values for the optimal performance in the diagnosis of infection were: total leucocyte count > 1463 cells/μL (sensitivity (Sens) 100%, specificity (Spec) 71.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 71.9%, negative predictive value (NPV) 100%); proportion of PMNs > 81% (Sens 78.3%, Spec 75.0%, PPV 69.2%, NPV 82.8%); CRP > 6.7mg/L (Sens 78.3%, Spec 93.8%, PPV 90.0%, NPV 85.7%); ADA > 61U/L (Sens 78.3%, Spec 96.9%, PPV 94.7%, NPV 86.1%) and α2M > 958 mg/L (Sens 47.8%, Spec 96.9%, PPV 91.7%, NPV 72.1%). The addition of a raised level of CRP or ADA to the total leukocyte count increased the specificity: total leukocyte count > 1463 cells/μL and CRP > 6.7mg/L (Sens 78.3%, Spec 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 86.5%) or with ADA > 61U/L (Sens 78.3%, Spec 96.9%, PPV 94.7%, NPV 86.1%). . Conclusion. The total leucocyte count in the synovial fluid offers great negative predictive value in the diagnosis of PJI and the addition of more specific markers such as CRP and ADA improves the positive predictive value. Thus the addition of simple and inexpensive markers to the measurement of the leucocyte count in the synovial fluid may reduce the number of equivocal results which demand more expensive investigation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:351–7

Aims. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available literature and to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity for the different alpha-defensin test systems that may be used to diagnose prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Materials and Methods. Studies using alpha-defensin or Synovasure (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) to diagnose PJI were identified from systematic searches of electronic databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS) tool. Meta-analysis was completed using a bivariate model. Results. A total of 11 eligible studies were included. The median QUADAS score was 13 (interquartile range 13 to 13) out of 14. Significant conflicts of interest were identified in five studies. The pooled sensitivity for the laboratory alpha-defensin test was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 0.98) and the pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) for four studies with a threshold level of 5.2 mgl. -1. The pooled sensitivity for the lateral flow cassette test was 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98). There was a statistically significant difference in sensitivity (p = 0.019), but not specificity (p = 0.47). Conclusion. Laboratory-based alpha-defensin testing remains a promising tool for diagnosing PJI. The lateral flow cassette has a significantly lower performance and pooled results are comparable to the leucocyte esterase test. Further studies are required before the widespread adoption of the lateral flow cassette alpha-defensin test. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:703–11

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). . Patients and Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry database was analysed, using revision surgery for PJI at six and 12 months after surgery as primary outcome measures. Statistical associations between revision for infection, with common and definable surgical and patient factors were tested. Results. A total of 64 566 primary TKAs have been recorded on the registry between 1999 and 2012 with minimum follow-up of 12 months. Multivariate analysis showed statistically significant associations with revision for PJI between male gender (odds ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.74), previous surgery (osteotomy (OR 2.45 95% CI 1.2 to 5.03), ligament reconstruction (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 5.00)), the use of laminar flow (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.47) and the use of antibiotic-laden cement (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.13). There was a trend towards significance (p = 0.052) with the use of surgical helmet systems at six months (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.34). Conclusion. These findings show that patient factors remain the most important in terms of predicting early PJI following TKA. Furthermore, we found no evidence that modern surgical helmet systems reduce the risk of PJI and laminar flow systems may actually increase risk in TKA. The use of this registry data assists the estimation of the risk of PJI for individual patients, which is important for both informed consent and the interpretation of infection rates at different institutions. . Take home message: Infection rates in TKA are related to both individual patient and surgical factors, and some modern methods of reducing infection may actually increase infection risk. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:334–40