Search

Introduction: Two-stage revision surgery is the most frequently performed procedure in patients with a chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The infection eradication rates in the current literature differ between 54 % and 100 %, which could be attributed to different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the infection eradication rate in patients with chronic PJI treated with two-stage revision surgery of the hip or knee in primary and re-revision cases. Methods: All patients treated with a two-stage revision for chronic PJI between 2005 and 2011 were analysed. Patient and infection characteristics were retrieved. Primary outcome was successful infection eradication at last follow-up. Successful eradication is specified as no need for subsequent revision surgery or suppressive antibiotic treatment. Results: Forty-seven patients were treated with a two-stage revision. Infection eradication was achieved in 36 out of 47 cases. Thirty-eight patients had positive cultures: 35 monomicrobial infections and 3 polymicrobial infections. Nine cases of culture-negative infections were identified. Accompanying eradication rates were 26 out of 35 cases, 2 out of 3 cases, and 8 out of 9 cases respectively. Mean follow-up was 128 (27–186) months. For hip and knee revisions the eradication rates were 22 out of 31 cases and 14 out of 16 cases respectively. After primary arthroplasty the infection was eradicated in 29 out of 38 cases and after re-revision in 7 out of 9 cases. Conclusion: In this study, the infection eradication rate for two-stage revision surgery after PJI of the hip and knee in primary and re-revision cases was 77 %. No statistically significant patient, infection and micro-organism characteristics were found which influence the infection eradication rates at long-term follow-up of 128 (27–186) months.

Background: Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be troublesome. Sonication can be a helpful tool in culturing bacteria that are difficult to detect with standard tissue cultures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical importance of our standardized sonication protocol in detecting periprosthetic joint infection.Materials and methods: All patients with revision surgery of a hip or knee prosthesis between 2011 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and divided in two groups: clinically suspected of infection or not suspected of infection. For both tissue culture and implant sonication, calculations of sensitivity and specificity were performed. Clinical relevance of sonication was evaluated by calculating in which percentage of patients' sonication influenced clinical treatment.Results: 226 patients with revision of a total hip prosthesis (122 patients) or a total knee prosthesis (104 patients) were included. Sensitivity of perioperatively taken tissue cultures was 94.3% and specificity was 99.3%. For sonication sensitivity was 80.5% and specificity was 97.8%.In the infection group eight patients (9%) with only one positive tissue culture and a positive sonication fluid culture with the same pathogen were found.Interpretation: Although sensitivity and specificity of sonication was lower compared to tissue cultures, periprosthetic joint infection could only be established in 8 patients (9%) suspected of infection because of a positive result of the sonication fluid culture.Sonication leads to clinically relevant changes in treatment and seems therefore to be a helpful diagnostic tool in clinical practice.

Background: To prevent postoperative infection the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common ground. Type of antibiotic used and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. In case of suspected early periprosthetic infection a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure is treatment of first choice. This study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis and DAIR treatment protocols nationwide as well as reporting of these DAIR procedures to the national joint registry.Methods: All institutions that performed total hip or knee arthroplasty were contacted to complete a 16-question online survey. Questions included availability of a protocol, type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis used and tendency to register infectious complications in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Results: All ninety-nine consulted institutions responded to this survey. All but one institutions have a standardized hospital based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Cefazolin was antibiotic prophylaxis of choice in ninety-four institutions for both primary hip and knee arthroplasty. In ten institutions one preoperative gift of antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. A protocol describing treatment when suspecting early periprosthetic joint infection was present in seventy-one institutions. When performing a DAIR procedure modular parts were exchanged in seventy institutions in case of a hip prosthesis and in eighty-one institutions in case of a knee prosthesis. Sixty-three institutions register DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Interpretation: In contradiction to the results of a recent study in Great Britain, we have found only little variety in availability of protocols and in the type of antibiotic used as prophylaxis in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in The Netherlands. Not every institution has a protocol for treatment in suspicion of early infection. Although mobile parts are exchanged in the majority of cases, there appears to be an underreporting of DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.