Search

Background Previous studies demonstrated the efficacy of a rifampicin-based regimen in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) treated with surgical debridement. However, evidence is lacking to support the use of rifampicin in cases where the implant is exchanged during revision. Methods We included all consecutive cases of staphylococcal PJIs treated from January 2013 to December 2018 with revision surgery in this international, retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society diagnostic criteria. A relapse or reinfection during follow-up, the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy, the need for implant removal, and PJI-related death were defined as clinical failure. Cases without reimplantation or with follow-up <12 months were excluded. Results A total of 375 cases were included in the final analysis, including 124 1-stage exchanges (33.1%) and 251 2-stage exchanges (66.9%). Of those, 101 cases failed (26.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in failure of patients receiving rifampicin (22.5%, 42/187) and those not receiving rifampicin (31.4%, 59/188; P =.051). A subanalysis of chronic PJIs treated by 2-stage exchange arthroplasty demonstrated a lower failure rate in cases treated with rifampicin (15%) compared with the no-rifampicin group (35.5%; P =.005). In this subgroup, the use of rifampicin and an antibiotic holiday of >2 weeks were independent predictors of clinical success (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15–0.88; and OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04–0.90; respectively). Conclusions Combination treatment with rifampicin increases treatment success in patients with chronic staphylococcal PJI treated with 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosis and treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult problem. The purpose of this study was to utilize the 2018 International Consensus Meeting definition of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection to categorize revision shoulder arthroplasty cases and determine variations in clinical presentation by presumed infection classification. Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Likelihood of periprosthetic joint infection was determined based on International Consensus Meeting scoring. All patients classified as definitive or probable periprosthetic joint infection were classified as periprosthetic joint infection. All patients classified as possible or unlikely periprosthetic joint infection were classified as aseptic. The periprosthetic joint infection cohort was subsequently divided into culture-negative, non-virulent microorganism, and virulent microorganism cohorts based on culture results. Results: Four hundred and sixty cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed. Eighty (17.4%) patients were diagnosed as definite or probable periprosthetic joint infection, of which 29 (36.3%), 39 (48.8%), and 12 (15.0%) were classified as virulent, non-virulent, or culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, respectively. There were significant differences among periprosthetic joint infection subgroups with regard to preoperative C-reactive protein (p = 0.020), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.051), sinus tract presence (p = 0.008), and intraoperative purulence (p < 0.001). The total International Consensus Meeting criteria scores were also significantly different between the periprosthetic joint infection cohorts (p < 0.001). Discussion: While the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection has improved with the advent of International Consensus Meeting criteria, there remain distinct differences between periprosthetic joint infection classifications that warrant further investigation to determine the accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment. [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]