Search

Background Rifampin is generally advised in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). However, if, when, and how to use rifampin remains a matter of debate. We evaluated the outcome of patients treated with and without rifampin, and analyzed the influence of timing, dose and co-antibiotic. Methods Acute staphylococcal PJIs treated with surgical debridement between 1999 and 2017, and a minimal follow-up of 1 year were evaluated. Treatment failure was defined as the need for any further surgical procedure related to infection, PJI-related death or the need for suppressive antimicrobial treatment. Results A total of 669 patients were analyzed. Treatment failure was 32.2% (131/407) in patients treated with rifampin and 54.2% (142/262) in whom rifampin was withheld (P <.001). The most prominent effect of rifampin was observed in knees (treatment failure 28.6% versus 63.9%, respectively, P <.001). The use of rifampin was an independent predictor of treatment success in the multi-variate analysis (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 – 0.45). In the rifampin group, the use of a co-antibiotic other than a fluoroquinolone or clindamycin (OR 10.1, 95% CI 5.65 – 18.2) and the start of rifampin within 5 days after surgical debridement (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08 – 3.65) were predictors of treatment failure. The dosing of rifampin had no effect on outcome. Conclusions Our data supports the use of rifampin in acute staphylococcal PJIs treated with surgical debridement, particularly in knees. Immediate start of rifampin after surgical debridement should probably be discouraged, but requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The success of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on the presence of a mature biofilm. At what time point DAIR should be disrecommended is unknown. This multicenter study evaluated the outcome of DAIR in relation to the time after index arthroplasty. Methods We retrospectively evaluated PJIs occurring within 90 days after surgery and treated with DAIR. Patients with bacteremia, arthroscopic debridements, and a follow-up <1 year were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as (1) any further surgical procedure related to infection; (2) PJI-related death; or (3) use of long-term suppressive antibiotics. Results We included 769 patients. Treatment failure occurred in 294 patients (38%) and was similar between time intervals from index arthroplasty to DAIR: the failure rate for Week 1–2 was 42% (95/226), the rate for Week 3–4 was 38% (143/378), the rate for Week 5–6 was 29% (29/100), and the rate for Week 7–12 was 42% (27/65). An exchange of modular components was performed to a lesser extent in the early post-surgical course compared with the late course (41% vs 63%, respectively; P <.001). The causative microorganisms, comorbidities, and durations of symptoms were comparable between time intervals. Conclusions DAIR is a viable option in patients with early PJI presenting more than 4 weeks after index surgery, as long as DAIR is performed within at least 1 week after the onset of symptoms and modular components can be exchanged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Next-generation sequencing is a well-established technique for sequencing of DNA and has recently gained attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of next-generation sequencing in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.Methods: In this prospective study, samples were collected from 65 revision arthroplasties (39 knees and 26 hips) and 17 primary arthroplasties (9 hips and 8 knees). Synovial fluid, deep tissue, and swabs were obtained at the time of the surgical procedure and were shipped to the laboratory for next-generation sequencing. Deep-tissue specimens were also sent to the institutional laboratory for culture. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for next-generation sequencing, using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition of periprosthetic joint infection as the standard.Results: In 28 revisions, the cases were considered to be infected; cultures were positive in 17 cases (60.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 40.6% to 78.5%]), and next-generation sequencing was positive in 25 cases (89.3% [95% CI, 71.8% to 97.7%]), with concordance between next-generation sequencing and culture in 15 cases. Among the 11 cases of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, next-generation sequencing was able to identify an organism in 9 cases (81.8% [95% CI, 48.2% to 97.7%]). Next-generation sequencing identified microbes in 9 (25.0% [95% CI, 12.1% to 42.2%]) of 36 aseptic revisions with negative cultures and in 6 (35.3% [95% CI, 14.2% to 61.7%]) of 17 primary total joint arthroplasties. Next-generation sequencing detected several organisms in most positive samples. However, in the majority of patients who were infected, 1 or 2 organisms were dominant.Conclusions: Next-generation sequencing may be a useful adjunct in identification of the causative organism(s) in culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection. Our findings suggest that some cases of monomicrobial periprosthetic joint infection may have additional organisms that escape detection when culture is used. Further study is required to determine the clinical implications of isolated organisms in samples from patients who are not thought to be infected.Level Of Evidence: Diagnostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "If, When, and How to Use Rifampin in Acute Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infections, a Multicentre Observational Study."