Aims. Fungal and mycobacterial periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are rare events. Clinicians are wary of missing these diagnoses, often leading to the routine ordering of fungal and mycobacterial cultures on periprosthetic specimens. Our goal was to examine the utility of these cultures and explore a modern bacterial culture technique using bacterial blood culture bottles (BCBs) as an alternative. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with hip or knee PJI between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA. We included patients aged 18 years or older who had fungal, mycobacterial, or both cultures performed together with bacterial cultures. Cases with positive fungal or mycobacterial cultures were reviewed using the electronic medical record to classify the microbiological findings as representing true infection or not. Results. There were 2,067 episodes of PJI diagnosed within the study period. A total of 3,629 fungal cultures and 2,923 mycobacterial cultures were performed, with at least one of these performed in 56% of episodes (n = 1,157). Test positivity rates of fungal and mycobacterial cultures were 5% (n = 179) and 1.2% (n = 34), respectively. After a comprehensive review, there were 40 true fungal and eight true mycobacterial PJIs. BCB were 90% sensitive in diagnosing true fungal PJI and 100% sensitive in detecting rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM). Fungal stains were performed in 27 true fungal PJI but were only positive in four episodes (14.8% sensitivity). None of the mycobacterial stains was positive. Conclusion. Routine fungal and mycobacterial stains and cultures should not be performed as they have little clinical utility in the diagnosis of PJI and are associated with significant costs. Candida species and RGM are readily recovered using BCB. More research is needed to predict rare non-Candida fungal and slowly growing mycobacterial PJI that warrant specialized cultures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):53–58

Aims

Fungal periprosthetic joint infections (fPJIs) are rare complications, constituting only 1% of all PJIs. Neither a uniform definition for fPJI has been established, nor a standardized treatment regimen. Compared to bacterial PJI, there is little evidence for fPJI in the literature with divergent results. Hence, we implemented a novel treatment algorithm based on three-stage revision arthroplasty, with local and systemic antifungal therapy to optimize treatment for fPJI.

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the absolute synovial polymorphonuclear neutrophil cell (PMN) count for the diagnosis or exclusion of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. In this retrospective cohort study, 147 consecutive patients with acute or chronic complaints following THA and TKA were included. Diagnosis of PJI was established based on the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. A total of 39 patients diagnosed with PJI (32 chronic and seven acute) and 108 patients with aseptic complications were surgically revised. Results. Using receiver operating characteristic curves and calculating the area under the curve (AUC), an optimal synovial cut-off value of 2,000 PMN/µl was determined (AUC 0.978 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.946 to 1)). Using this cut-off, sensitivity and specificity of absolute synovial PMN count for PJI were 97.4% (95% CI 91.2 to 100) and 93.5% (95% CI 88.9 to 98.1), respectively. Positive and negative predictive value were 84.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and 99.0% (95% CI 96.7 to 100), respectively. Exclusion of 20 patients with acute complications improved specificity to 97.9% (95% CI 94.6 to 100). Different cut-off values for THA (< 3,600 PMN/µl) and TKA (< 2,000 PMN/µl) were identified. Absolute synovial PMN count correlated strongly with synovial alpha-defensin (AD) (r = 0.759; p < 0.001). With a positive AD result, no additional PJI could be identified in any case. Conclusion. Absolute synovial PMN count is a widely available, rapid, cost-effective, and accurate marker in PJI diagnostics, whereas synovial AD appears to be a surrogate parameter of absolute synovial PMN count. Despite limitations in the early postoperative phase, wear, and rheumatic diseases in confirming PJI, an absolute synovial PMN count below 2,000/µl is highly suitable for ruling out PJI, with specific cut-off values for THA and TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):373–381

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. This was a data linkage study using the New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC) and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), which collect data from all public and private hospitals in NSW, Australia. Patients who underwent a TKA or THA for OA between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2017 were included. The main outcome measures were 90-day incidence rates of hospital readmission for: revision arthroplasty for PJI as recorded in the AOANJRR; conservative definition of PJI, defined by T84.5, the PJI diagnosis code in the APDC; and extended definition of PJI, defined by the presence of either T84.5, or combinations of diagnosis and procedure code groups derived from recursive binary partitioning in the APDC. Results. The mean 90-day revision rate for infection was 0.1% (0.1% to 0.2%) for TKA and 0.3% (0.1% to 0.5%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates defined by T84.5 were 1.3% (1.1% to 1.7%) for TKA and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.3%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates using the extended definition were 1.9% (1.5% to 2.2%) and 1.5% (1.3% to 1.7%) following TKA and THA, respectively. Conclusion. When reporting the revision arthroplasty for infection, the AOANJRR substantially underestimates the rate of PJI at 90 days. Using combinations of infection codes and PJI-related surgical procedure codes in linked hospital administrative databases could be an alternative way to monitor PJI rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1060–1066

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) demonstrates the most feared complication after total joint replacement (TJR). The current work analyzes the demographic, comorbidity, and complication profiles of all patients who had in-hospital treatment due to PJI. Furthermore, it aims to evaluate the in-hospital mortality of patients with PJI and analyze possible risk factors in terms of secondary diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, and complications. Methods. In a retrospective, cross-sectional study design, we gathered all patients with PJI (International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code: T84.5) and resulting in-hospital treatment in Germany between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022. Data were provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System in Germany. Demographic data, in-hospital deaths, need for intensive care therapy, secondary diagnosis, complications, and use of diagnostic instruments were assessed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for in-hospital mortality were calculated. Results. A total of 52,286 patients were included, of whom 1,804 (3.5%) died. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, the most frequent comorbidities, were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Cardiac diseases as atrial fibrillation, cardiac pacemaker, or three-vessel coronary heart disease showed the highest risk for in-hospital mortality. Postoperative anaemia occurred in two-thirds of patients and showed an increased in-hospital mortality (OR 1.72; p < 0.001). Severe complications, such as organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), or septic shock syndrome showed by far the highest association with in-hospital mortality (OR 39.20; 95% CI 33.07 to 46.46; p < 0.001). Conclusion. These findings highlight the menace coming from PJI. It can culminate in multi-organ failure, SIRS, or septic shock syndrome, along with very high rates of in-hospital mortality, thereby highlighting the vulnerability of these patients. Particular attention should be paid to patients with cardiac comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation or three-vessel coronary heart disease. Risk factors should be optimized preoperatively, anticoagulant therapy stopped and restarted on time, and sufficient patient blood management should be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):367–373

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal deep tissue specimen sample number for histopathological analysis in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. In this retrospective diagnostic study, patients undergoing revision surgery after total hip or knee arthroplasty (n = 119) between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Multiple specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule were obtained for histopathological analysis at revision arthroplasty. Based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013 criteria, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria, and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021 criteria, PJI was defined. Using a mixed effects logistic regression model, the sensitivity and specificity of the histological diagnosis were calculated. The optimal number of periprosthetic tissue specimens for histopathological analysis was determined by applying the Youden index. Results. Based on the EBJIS criteria (excluding histology), 46 (39%) patients were classified as infected. Four to six specimens showed the highest Youden index (four specimens: 0.631; five: 0.634; six: 0.632). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of five tissue specimens were 76.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 67.6 to 81.4), 86.8% (95% CI 81.3 to 93.5), 66.0% (95% CI 53.2 to 78.7), and 84.3% (95% CI 79.4 to 89.3), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated with 0.81 (as a function of the number of tissue specimens). Applying the ICM and IDSA criteria (excluding histology), 40 (34%) and 32 (27%) patients were categorized as septic. Three to five specimens had the highest Youden index (ICM 3: 0.648; 4: 0.651; 5: 0.649) (IDSA 3: 0.627; 4: 0.629; 5: 0.625). Conclusion. Three to six tissue specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule should be collected at revision arthroplasty and analyzed by a pathologist experienced and skilled in interpreting periprosthetic tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):158–165

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

Aims. A higher failure rate has been reported in haematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to non-haematogenous PJI. The reason for this difference is unknown. We investigated the outcome of haematogenous and non-haematogenous PJI to analyze the risk factors for failure in both groups of patients. Methods. Episodes of knee or hip PJI (defined by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria) treated at our institution between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in a retrospective PJI cohort. Episodes with a follow-up of > one year were stratified by route of infection into haematogenous and non-haematogenous PJI. Probability of failure-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between groups using log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied to assess risk factors for failure. Results. A total of 305 PJI episodes (174 hips, 131 knees) were allocated to the haematogenous (n = 146) or the non-haematogenous group (n = 159). Among monomicrobial infections, Staphylococcus aureus was the dominant pathogen in haematogenous PJI (76/140, 54%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in non-haematogenous PJI (57/133, 43%). In both groups, multi-stage exchange (n = 55 (38%) in haematogenous and n = 73 (46%) in non-haematogenous PJI) and prosthesis retention (n = 70 (48%) in haematogenous and n = 48 (30%) in non-haematogenous PJI) were the most common surgical strategies. Median duration of antimicrobial treatment was 13.5 weeks (range, 0.5 to 218 weeks) and similar in both groups. After six years of follow-up, the probability of failure-free survival was significantly lower in haematogenous compared to non-haematogenous PJI (55% vs 74%; p = 0.021). Infection-related mortality was significantly higher in haematogenous than non-haematogenous PJI (7% vs 0% episodes; p = 0.001). Pathogenesis of failure was similar in both groups. Retention of the prosthesis was the only independent risk factor for failure in multivariate analysis in both groups. Conclusion. Treatment failure was significantly higher in haematogenous compared to non-haematogenous PJI. Retention of the prosthesis was the only independent risk factor for failure in both groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1294–1302

Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. Methods. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. Results. The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). Conclusion. DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464–471

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. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of α defensin (AD) lateral flow assay (LFA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to conventional synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) analysis. Methods. Patients undergoing joint aspiration for evaluation of pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) were considered for inclusion. Synovial fluids from 99 patients (25 THA and 74 TKA) were analyzed by WBC count and PMN% analysis, AD LFA, and AD ELISA. WBC and PMN% cutoffs of ≥ 1,700 cells/mm. 3. and ≥ 65% for TKA and ≥ 3,000 cells/mm. 3. and ≥ 80% for THA were used, respectively. A panel of three physicians, all with expertise in orthopaedic infections and who were blinded to the results of AD tests, independently reviewed patient data to diagnose subjects as with or without PJI. Consensus PJI classification was used as the reference standard to evaluate test performances. Results were compared using McNemar’s test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Results. Expert consensus classified 18 arthroplasies as having failed due to PJI and 81 due to aseptic failure. Using these classifications, the calculated sensitivity and specificity of AD LFA was 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6 to 96.4) and 93.8% (95% CI 86.2 to 98.0), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of AD ELISA was 83.3% (95% CI 58.6 to 96.4) and 96.3% (95% CI 89.6 to 99.2), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between sensitivity (p = 1.000) or specificity (p = 0.157) of the two AD assays. AUC for AD LFA was 0.891. In comparison, AUC for synovial WBC count, PMN%, and the combination of the two values was 0.821 (sensitivity p = 1.000, specificity p < 0.001), 0.886 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.011), and 0.926 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.317), respectively. Conclusion. The diagnostic accuracy of synovial AD for PJI diagnosis is comparable and not statistically superior to that of synovial WBC count plus PMN% combined. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1119–1126

Aims. As a proven and comprehensive molecular technique, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has shown its potential in the diagnosis of pathogens in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), using a single type of specimen. However, the optimal use of mNGS in the management of PJI has not been explored. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic value of mNGS using three types of specimen with the aim of achieving a better choice of specimen for mNGS in these patients. Methods. In this prospective study, 177 specimens were collected from 59 revision arthroplasties, including periprosthetic tissues, synovial fluid, and prosthetic sonicate fluid. Each specimen was divided into two, one for mNGS and one for culture. The criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society were used to define PJI (40 cases) and aseptic failure (19 cases). Results. The sensitivity and specificity of mNGS in the diagnosis of PJI were 95% and 94.7%, respectively, for all types of specimen. The sensitivity and specificity were 65% and 100%, respectively, for periprosthetic tissues, 87.5% and 94.7%, respectively, for synovial fluid, and 92.5% and 94.7%, respectively, for prosthetic sonicate fluid. The mNGS of prosthetic sonicate fluid outperformed that for other types of specimen in the rates of detection of pathogens (84.6%), sequencing reads (> ten-fold) and the rate of genome coverage (> five-fold). Conclusion. mNGS could serve as an accurate diagnostic tool in the detection of pathogens in patients with a PJI using three types of specimen. Due to its superior perfomance in identifying a pathogen, mNGS of prosthetic sonicate fluid provides the most value and may partly replace traditional tests such as bacteriological culture in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):923–930

Aims. Calprotectin (CLP) is produced in neutrophils and monocytes and released into body fluids as a result of inflammation or infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of blood and synovial CLP in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. Blood and synovial fluid samples were collected prospectively from 195 patients undergoing primary or revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Patients were divided into five groups: 1) primary total hip and knee arthroplasty performed due to idiopathic osteoarthritis (OA; n = 60); 2) revision hip and knee arthroplasty performed due to aseptic failure of the implant (AR-TJR; n = 40); 3) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of chronic PJI awaiting surgery (n = 45); 4) patients who have finished the first stage of the PJI treatment with the use of cemented spacer and were qualified for replantation procedure (SR-TJR; n = 25), and 5) patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (RA; n = 25). CLP concentrations were measured quantitatively in the blood and synovial fluid using an immunoturbidimetric assay. Additionally, blood and synovial CRP, blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), and ESR were measured, and a leucocyte esterase (LE) strip test was performed. Results. Patients with PJI had higher CLP concentrations than those undergoing aseptic revision in blood (median PJI 2.14 mg/l (interquartile range (IQR) 1.37 to 3.56) vs AR-TJR 0.66 mg/l (IQR 0.3 to 0.83); p < 0.001) and synovial fluid samples (median PJI 20.46 mg/l (IQR 14.3 to 22.36) vs AR-TJR 0.7 mg/l (IQR 0.41 to 0.95); p < 0.001). With a cut-off value of 1.0 mg/l, blood CLP showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 93.3%, 87.5%, 89.4%, and 92.1%, respectively. For synovial fluid with a cut-off value of 1.5 mg/l, these were 95.6%, 95%, 95.5%, and 95%, respectively. Conclusion. This small study suggests that synovial and blood CLP are useful markers in chronic PJI diagnosis with similar or higher sensitivity and specificity than routinely used markers such as CRP, ESR, IL-6, and LE. CLP was not useful to differentiate patients with PJI from those with rheumatoid arthritis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):46–55

Aims. Use of molecular sequencing methods in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and organism identification have gained popularity. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a potentially powerful tool that is now commercially available. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of NGS, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), conventional culture, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and the recently proposed criteria by Parvizi et al in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods. In this retrospective study, aspirates or tissue samples were collected in 30 revision and 86 primary arthroplasties for routine diagnostic investigation for PJI and sent to the laboratory for NGS and PCR. Concordance along with statistical differences between diagnostic studies were calculated. Results. Using the MSIS criteria to diagnose PJI as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of NGS were 60.9% and 89.9%, respectively, while culture resulted in sensitivity of 76.9% and specificity of 95.3%. PCR had a low sensitivity of 18.4%. There was no significant difference based on sample collection method (tissue swab or synovial fluid) (p = 0.760). There were 11 samples that were culture-positive and NGS-negative, of which eight met MSIS criteria for diagnosing infection. Conclusion. In our series, NGS did not provide superior sensitivity or specificity results compared to culture. PCR has little utility as a standalone test for PJI diagnosis with a sensitivity of only 18.4%. Currently, several laboratory tests for PJI diagnosis should be obtained along with the overall clinical picture to help guide decision-making for PJI treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):26–31

Aims. The surgical helmet system (SHS) was developed to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but the evidence is contradictory, with some studies suggesting an increased risk of PJI due to potential leakage through the glove-gown interface (GGI) caused by its positive pressure. We assumed that SHS and glove exchange had an impact on the leakage via GGI. Methods. There were 404 arthroplasty simulations with fluorescent gel, in which SHS was used (H+) or not (H-), and GGI was sealed (S+) or not (S-), divided into four groups: H+S+, H+S-, H-S+, and H-S-, varying by exposure duration (15 to 60 minutes) and frequency of glove exchanges (0 to 6 times). The intensity of fluorescent leakage through GGI was quantified automatically with an image analysis software. The effect of the above factors on fluorescent leakage via GGI were compared and analyzed. Results. The leakage intensity increased with exposure duration and frequency of glove exchanges in all groups. When SHS was used and GGI was not sealed (H+S-), the leakage intensity via GGI had the fastest increase, consistently higher than other groups (H+S+, H-S+ and H-S-) after 30 minutes (p < 0.05) and when there were more than four instances of glove exchange (p < 0.05). Additionally, the leakage was strongly correlated with the duration of exposure (r. s. = 0.8379; p < 0.050) and the frequency of glove exchange (r. s. = 0.8198; p < 0.050) in H+S-. The correlations with duration and frequency turned weak when SHS was not used (H-) or GGI was sealed off (S+). Conclusion. Due to personal protection, SHS is recommended in arthroplasties. Meanwhile, it is strongly recommended to seal the GGI of the inner gloves and exchange the outer gloves hourly to reduce the risk of contamination from SHS. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):859–864

Aims. Gram-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been poorly studied despite its rapidly increasing incidence. Treatment with one-stage revision using intra-articular (IA) infusion of antibiotics may offer a reasonable alternative with a distinct advantage of providing a means of delivering the drug in high concentrations. Carbapenems are regarded as the last line of defense against severe Gram-negative or polymicrobial infection. This study presents the results of one-stage revision using intra-articular carbapenem infusion for treating Gram-negative PJI, and analyzes the characteristics of bacteria distribution and drug sensitivity. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients (22 hips and 11 knees) who underwent single-stage revision combined with IA carbapenem infusion between November 2013 and March 2020. The IA and intravenous (IV) carbapenem infusions were administered for a single Gram-negative infection, and IV vancomycin combined with IA carbapenems and vancomycin was applied for polymicrobial infection including Gram-negative bacteria. The bacterial community distribution, drug sensitivity, infection control rate, functional recovery, and complications were evaluated. Reinfection or death caused by PJI was regarded as a treatment failure. Results. Gram-negative PJI was mainly caused by Escherichia coli (8/34), Enterobacter cloacae (7/34), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (5/34). Seven cases (7/32) involved polymicrobial PJIs. The resistance rates of penicillin, cephalosporin, quinolones, and sulfonamides were > 10%, and all penicillin and partial cephalosporins (first and second generation) were > 30%. Of 32 cases, treatment failed to eradicate infection in only three cases (9.4%), at a mean follow-up of 55.1 months (SD 25 to 90). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score and Hospital for Special Surgery knee score at the most recent follow-up were 81 (62 to 91) and 79 (56 to 89), respectively. One patient developed a fistula, and another presented with a local rash on an infected joint. Conclusion. The use of IA carbapenem delivered alongside one-stage revision effectively controlled Gram-negative infection and obtained acceptable clinical outcomes with few complications. Notably, first- and second-generation cephalosporins and penicillin should be administrated with caution, due to a high incidence of resistance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):284–293

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521