Dataset Information

Evaluation and Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection-an International, Multicenter Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Controversies still exist regarding the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in patients with prosthetic joint infections (PJI).

Questions/purposes

How effective are preoperative and intraoperative cultures in isolating organisms and how do these culture results compare to one another? What are the results of surgical treatment of PJI in the hip and knee in an international, tertiary referral center cohort?

Patients and methods

One hundred sixteen patients (N = 59 hip PJI, N = 57 knee PJI) were recruited prospectively to registries at three international, tertiary referral centers between December 2008 to November 2011. Retrospective review of prospective registry data including demographics, microbiology results, and operative reports was performed.

Results

Preoperative synovial fluid aspiration yielded an organism in only 45.2% and 44.4% of cases, respectively, for knee and hip PJI. False-negative rates of preoperative aspiration relative to intraoperative culture were 56% and 46% in hip and knee PJI, respectively, with discordance rates of 25% and 21.4%, respectively. Rates of negative intraoperative cultures were 15% in hip PJI and 20.7% in knee PJI. Open debridement with prosthetic retention was the most common initial revision procedure performed (48.3% of hip PJI and 63.8% of knee PJI). This method of revision was successful in 41.3% of hip PJI and 59.4% of knee PJI. Initial failure rates for prosthetic revision was lower than debridement with prosthetic retention but remained substantial in both hip PJI (initial success of one-stage exchange 60% and two-stage exchange 70%) and knee PJI (initial success of one-stage exchange 80% and two-stage exchange 75%).

Conclusion

Diagnosis and treatment of PJI remains challenging with difficulty in isolating the offending organism and with high rates of prosthetic revision and initial treatment failures. Future advances in organism isolation and international standardization of treatment protocols may improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Shanmugasundaram S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3903947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The volume of joint replacement surgery has risen steadily in recent years, because the population is aging and increasingly wishes to reserve 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.This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, including current guidelines and expert recommendations.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 débridement) 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.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.

Project description:Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a devastating complication of total joint replacement, is of incompletely understood pathogenesis and may sometimes be challenging to clinically distinguish from other causes of arthroplasty failure. We characterized human gene expression in 93 specimens derived from surfaces of resected arthroplasties, comparing transcriptomes of subjects with infection- versus non-infection-associated arthroplasty failure. Differential gene expression analysis confirmed 28 previously reported potential biomarkers of PJI, including bactericidal/permeability increasing protein (BPI), cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (CAMP), C-C-motif chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3), 4(CCL4), and C-X-C-motif chemokine ligand 2 (CXCL2), colony stimulating factor 2 receptor beta (CSF2RB), colony stimulating factor 3 (CSF3), alpha-defensin (DEFA4), Fc fragment of IgG receptor 1B (CD64B), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1), interferon gamma (IFNG), interleukin 13 receptor subunit alpha 2 (IL13RA2), interleukin 17D (IL17D), interleukin 1 (IL1A, IL1B, IL1RN), interleukin 2 receptors (IL2RA, IL2RG), interleukin 5 receptor (IL5RA), interleukin 6 (IL6), interleukin 8 (IL8), lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP), lipocalin (LCN2), lactate dehydrogenase C (LDHC), lactotransferrin (LTF), matrix metallopeptidase 3 (MMP3), peptidase inhibitor 3 (PI3), and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA), and identified three novel molecules of potential diagnostic use for detection of PJI, namely C-C-motif chemokine ligand CCL20, coagulation factor VII (F7), and B cell receptor FCRL4. Comparative analysis of infections caused by staphylococci versus bacteria other than staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus versus Staphylococcus epidermidis showed elevated expression of interleukin 13 (IL13), IL17D, and MMP3 in staphylococcal infections, and of IL1B, IL8, and platelet factor PF4V1 in S. aureus compared to S. epidermidis infections. Pathway analysis of over-represented genes suggested activation of host immune response and cellular maintenance and repair functions in response to invasion of infectious agents. The data presented provides new potential targets for diagnosis of PJI and for differentiation of PJI caused by different infectious agents.

Project description:BackgroundThe lack of agreement regarding what constitutes successful treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) makes it difficult to compare the different strategies of management that are used in clinical practice and in research studies.Questions/purposesThe aims of this study were to create a consensus definition for success after PJI treatment, and to provide a universal, multidimensional framework for reporting of studies regarding PJI treatment.MethodsA two-round basic Delphi method was used to reach a consensus definition. We invited 159 international experts (orthopaedic surgeons, infectious disease specialists, and clinical researchers) from 17 countries to participate; 59 participated in the first round, and 42 participated in the second round. The final definition consisted of all statements that achieved strong agreement (80% or greater of participants considering a criterion relevant for defining success).ResultsThe consensus definition of a successfully treated PJI is: (1) infection eradication, characterized by a healed wound without fistula, drainage, or pain, and no infection recurrence caused by the same organism strain; (2) no subsequent surgical intervention for infection after reimplantation surgery; and (3) no occurrence of PJI-related mortality (by causes such as sepsis, necrotizing fasciitis). The Delphi panel agreed to defining midterm results as those reported 5 or more years after the definitive PJI surgery, and long-term results as those reported 10 or more years after surgery. Although no consensus was reached on the definition of short-term results, 71% of the participants agreed that 2 years after the definitive PJI surgery is acceptable to define it.ConclusionsThis multidimensional definition of success after PJI treatment may be used to report and compare results of treatment of this catastrophic complication.Level of evidenceLevel V, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.