Search

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 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]