What Is the True Impact of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis on Mortality?

BACKGROUND: Mortality is a quality indicator that may affect expenditures. Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are, on average, more expensive and exhibit higher morbidity than aseptic revisions, although reimbursement is similar. Therefore, we sought to determine (1) impact on mortality rates of revision total hip and/or knee arthroplasty performed for PJI diagnosis (septic) versus aseptic revisions, at any point in time, and (2) mortality predictors among PJI patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 978 consecutive patients who underwent revision at a single institution (January 2015 to November 2020). All revisions were evaluated, and it was determined whether patients had a revision for PJI at any point in time or not. Two groups were compared: (1) patients with septic revision(s) (n = 350) and (2) patients who only underwent aseptic revision(s) (n = 628). Demographics and mortality status at latest follow-up (mean 3 years, range: 0 to 18 years, from first revision ever) were assessed. Mortality status was also separately assessed among patients who exclusively had hip revision(s), or solely knee revision(s), or both. Multivariate regression analysis (Cox) was used to determine whether PJI diagnosis was an independent mortality predictor. Among PJI patients, potential mortality predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 65 patients died (6.6%). The septic cohort had significantly more men and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class-IV patients. Mortality rates were 10.9% and 4.3% (P < .0001) for septic and aseptic revision groups, respectively. After controlling for sex, ASA, and number of revisions, PJI diagnosis was a significant mortality predictor (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5 to 4.7, P = .001). Among PJI patients, age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.08, P = .009) and ASA (HR: 4.02, 95% CI: 1.67 to 9.67, P = .002) were independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Having a revision due to PJI diagnosis was associated with 2.5 times increased mortality. Therefore, more accurate coding capturing the complexity and morbidity of revisions for PJI diagnosis is needed.

Does Time to Aseptic Failure After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Affect Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effects of time-to-failure from primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to aseptic first-revision on clinical results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is scarce. Therefore, we sought to compare demographics, operative times, lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, 90-day readmissions, re-revision rates, mortalities, and PROMs between early and late aseptic THA revisions. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected institutional database of all elective hip procedures. In total, 572 patients who underwent aseptic revision after primary THA from August 2015 to December 2018 were analyzed. Patients were stratified into either early revision (<3-years; n = 176) or late revision (≥3-years; n = 396) cohorts. RESULTS: Significantly more patients were revised earlier for bone-related (ie, periprosthetic fractures) (22.7% versus 8.3%) or other various complications (19.9% versus 5.8%), whereas more late revisions were performed to treat implant-related failures (6.8% versus 37.1%), respectively. Operative time was significantly shorter in early versus late revisions (133 versus 157 minutes). A significantly higher delta-change/improvement from baseline/preoperative to 1-year postoperative was found for hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function (HOOS-PS), veterans-RAND-12 physical and mental components (VR-12-PCS and MCS, respectively) of early revisions. However, HOOS-PS and HOOS-Pain at 1-year of follow-up were significantly worse in early revisions. CONCLUSION: With exception of operative time, time-to-failure had no significant influence on clinical results. Despite greater improvements on PROMs from preoperative to postoperative, patients undergoing early revisions after primary THA perceive significantly higher levels of pain and worse physical functionality at 1-year of follow-up.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Revisions: A Preliminary Report.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis reduces periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after aseptic revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature is scarce. Therefore, we sought to ascertain whether EOA prophylaxis decreases PJI rates after aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA when compared to standard prophylaxis. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 328 consecutive revisions (3 surgeons, single institution, from September 27, 2017 to December 31, 2019). Preoperative 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, radiographs, and medications were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA. Exclusion criteria were positive intraoperative cultures and/or histology, PJI (2013 MSIS criteria), hemiarthroplasty/partial arthroplasty revision, revision using foreign material (ie, mesh), metastatic bone disease, and intravenous antibiotics >24 hours after surgery. A total of 178 revisions were included, and 2 groups were set apart based on antibiotic prophylactic regime. The following were the groups: (1) EOA prophylaxis (>24 hours, n = 93) and (2) standard prophylaxis (≤24 hours, n = 85). Demographics, joint types, lengths of stay, skin-to-skin operative times, revision types, transfusions, discharge dispositions, and PJIs (per 2013 MSIS criteria) after the first-time revision were compared between groups. There were no significant differences in demographics. However, skin-to-skin operative time was significantly higher in the EOA group (123 minutes versus 98 minutes, P = .01). Mean follow-up was 849 days (range, 15-1,671). Statistical significance was set at a P value lower than .05. RESULTS: Postoperative PJI rates were not significantly different: 2.2% EOA prophylaxis versus 3.5% standard prophylaxis (P = .671). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found between PJI rates between both prophylactic regimens. A large multicenter study with a larger sample size is needed to support EOA after aseptic revisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Is a Higher Number of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Revisions Associated With Increased Mortality?

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether patients who undergo numerous total hip arthroplasty (THA) and/or knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions exhibit decreased survival. Therefore, we sought to determine if the number of revisions per patient was a mortality predictor. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 978 consecutive THA and TKA revision patients from a single institution (from January 5, 2015-November 10, 2020). Dates of first-revision or single revision during study period and of latest follow-up or death were collected, and mortality was assessed. Number of revisions per patient and demographics corresponding to first revision or single revision were determined. Kaplan-Meier, univariate, and multivariate Cox-regressions were utilized to determine mortality predictors. The mean follow-up was 893 days (range, 3-2,658). RESULTS: Mortality rates were 5.5% for the entire series, 5.0% among patients who only underwent TKA revision(s), 5.4% for only THA revision(s), and 17.2% for patients who underwent TKA and THA revisions (P = .019). In univariate Cox-regression, number of revisions per patient was not predictive of mortality in any of the groups analyzed. Age, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) were significant mortality predictors in the entire series. Every 1 year of age increase significantly elevated expected death by 5.6% while per unit increase in BMI decreased the expected death by 6.7%, ASA-3 or ASA-4 patients had a 3.1 -fold increased expected death compared to ASA-1 or ASA-2 patients. CONCLUSION: The number of revisions a patient underwent did not significantly impact mortality. Increased age and ASA were positively associated with mortality but higher BMI was negatively associated. If health status is appropriate, patients can undergo multiple revisions without risk of decreased survival.

Does Performance of D-Dimer for Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Change With the Virulence of Infecting Organism?

BACKGROUND: The impact of the organism virulence on diagnostic accuracy of D-Dimer for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is unknown. Our objective was to assess if the performance of D-Dimer in PJI diagnosis changes with the virulence of the organism(s). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 143 consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties/total knee arthroplasties with D-Dimer ordered preoperatively. Operations were performed by 3 surgeons at a single institution (November 2017 through September 2020). There were 141 revisions with complete 2013-International Consensus Meeting-criteria initially included. This criteria was used to classify revisions as aseptic versus septic. Culture-negative septic revisions (n = 8) were excluded, and 133 revisions (47-hips/86-knees; 67-septic/66-aseptic) were analyzed. Based on culture results, septic-revisions were categorized into 'low-virulence (LV/n = 40)' or 'high-virulence (HV/n = 27)'. The D-Dimer threshold (850-ng/mL) was tested against 2013-International Consensus Meeting-criteria ("standard") in identifying septic-revisions (LV/HV) from aseptic-revisions. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values/negative predictive values (NPV) were determined. Receiver-operating-characteristic-curve-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Plasma D-Dimer showed high sensitivity (97.5%) and NPV (95.4%) in LV septic cases, which appeared to reduce by about 5% in HV septic cases (sensitivity = 92.5% and NPV = 91.3%). However, this marker had poor overall accuracy (LV = 57%; HV = 49.4%), low specificity (LV and HV = 31.8%), and positive predictive values (LV = 46.4%; HV = 35.7%) to diagnose PJI. The area under the curve was 0.647 and 0.622 in LV and HV versus aseptic revisions, respectively. CONCLUSION: D-Dimer performs poorly to identify septic from aseptic revisions in the setting of LV/HV infecting organisms alike. However, it shows high sensitivity for PJI diagnosis in cases of LV organisms which might be missed by most diagnostic tests.

The Fate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection With Corynebacterium striatum: A Rare but Catastrophic Causative Organism.

BACKGROUND: The virulence and antibiotic resistance profile of an infecting organism have been shown to impact the outcomes of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there are no existing data on the outcomes of PJI caused by Corynebacterium striatum, a rare organism. Thus, our objective is to ascertain: (1) the treatment success of PJI caused by this rare organism and (2) patient characteristics in the setting of C striatum PJI. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 741 consecutive PJIs managed at 2 hospital facilities by 8 surgeons (February 4, 2015 to October 30, 2019). The inclusion criteria represented the presence of minimum 1 positive culture of C. striatum. After excluding 1 patient with no follow-up, 15 patients were finally analyzed (9 hips/6 knees). Out of 15 patients, 9 underwent explantation with spacer insertion, 5 underwent irrigation and debridement with polyexchange (I&D), and 1 underwent Girdlestone. Out of 9 explanted patients, only 6 cleared infection and were reimplanted. The clinical staging system for PJI was determined using McPherson classification. The mean follow-ups for I&D and explantation were 35 and 23.5 months, respectively. Success of reimplantation was determined using Delphi criteria. RESULTS: Out of 5 I&D patients, 40% had to be reoperated because of persistent infection. Out of 6 explanted patients who were reimplanted, 67% failed. According to McPherson, 40% of I&D and 22.2% of explanted patients were significantly compromised hosts. CONCLUSION: C. striatum PJI has a high-treatment failure rate in patient undergoing I&D or 2-stage revision surgery. Surgeons should be aware of the difficulty controlling this PJI and advise patients accordingly.

Paradoxical Behavior of Plasma d-Dimer From Explantation to Reimplantation in a Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The variation of plasma d-dimer, an inflammatory marker, from pre-explantation to pre-reimplantation in two-stage revision remains unclear. Our objective was to evaluate delta-changes (Δ) in d-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive-protein (CRP), to ascertain whether these delta-changes are associated with the outcome of reimplantation. We hypothesized a decrease in d-dimer before reimplantation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a consecutive series of 95 two-stage revisions indicated for periprosthetic joint infection. Surgeries were performed by 3 surgeons at a single institution (2018-2020). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. The inclusion criteria comprised availability of d-dimer results at pre-explantation and pre-reimplantation. As a result, only 30 reimplantations were included. Success of reimplantation was defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society outcome reporting tool: Tier 1/Tier 2 vs Tier 3/Tier 4. Nonparametric tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted to compare Δd-dimer% (pre-explantation value - pre-reimplantation value/pre-explantation value × 100). The bootstrapped receiver operating characteristic curve analyses with 2,000 replicates of 30 cases were conducted. RESULTS: The median time between explantation and reimplantation was 86 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 77.7-138.5 days). Overall, a paradoxical median percent increase (Δd-Dimer% [INCREMENT] = 12.6%) in d-dimer was found from pre-explantation to pre-reimplantation (IQR = -28.06% to 77.3%). However, there was a percentage decrease in ESR (ΔESR% [DECREMENT] = -40%; IQR = -70.52% to 3.85%) and CRP (ΔCRP% [DECREMENT] = -75%; IQR = -87.43% to -61.34%). The changes in all these markers were not different between Musculoskeletal Infection Society Tier 1/2 and 3/4 outcomes (Δd-Dimer%, P = .146; ΔESR%, P = .946; ΔCRP%, P = .463). With area under curve of 0.676, Δd-dimer% (INCREMENT) appeared to be performing best in diagnosing infection control, which was nonexplanatory. CONCLUSION: Plasma d-dimer paradoxically increases before reimplantation while other inflammatory markers (ESR/CRP) decrease, emphasizing that surgeons shall adopt caution using d-dimer to make clinical decisions.

Synovial White Blood Cell Count and Differential to Predict Successful Infection Management in a Two-Stage Revision.

BACKGROUND: An array of synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear differential (PMN%) thresholds have been reported using 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition which has a poor accuracy to confirm infection control before reimplantation. The workgroup of MSIS recently developed a comprehensive definition of successful infection management. Our objectives were to determine optimal thresholds for WBC count and PMN% associated with reimplantation success based on this new MSIS definition and assess if values above these thresholds indicate decreased survival time. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on a consecutive series of 133 two-stage hip/knee arthroplasties performed by 15 surgeons (2014-2020) at 2 institutions. All surgeries had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The inclusion criteria included reporting of preoperative synovial fluid aspiration results. Thus, 88 were finally included. Surgical success was defined by MSIS outcome reporting tool (Tiers 1-4). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to estimate optimal thresholds of WBC count and PMN%. A Kaplan-Meier survival analyses with log-rank test were performed. RESULTS: With area under the curve of 0.65, synovial PMN% showed superior accuracy than WBC count (area under the curve = 0.52) in determining outcome of reimplantation. The optimal PMN% threshold (62%) demonstrated sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 77%. The calculated WBC count threshold (2,733/µL) showed poor sensitivity (21%) but high specificity (95%). There was a significant difference in failure-free survival (24 months) between the cases with WBC count higher vs lower than 2,733/µL (P = .002). This was also true for PMN% at 5 months postoperatively (P = .009). CONCLUSION: WBC count (2,733/µL) shows very high specificity to confirm successful reimplantation. Both WBC count and PMN% (62%) thresholds can significantly determine reimplantation survival.

Plasma D-dimer Does Not Anticipate the Fate of Reimplantation in Two-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Preliminary Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory markers such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels have always been a part of the diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but they perform poorly anticipating the outcome of reimplantation. D-dimer has been reported in a small series as a potential marker to measure infection control after single-stage revisions to treat PJI. Nonetheless, its use to confirm infection control and decide the proper timing of reimplantation remains uncertain. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the best diagnostic threshold and accuracy values for plasma D-dimer levels compared with other inflammatory markers (ESR and CRP) or what varying combinations of these tests are associated with persistent infection after reimplantation? (2) Do D-dimer values above this threshold, ESR, CRP, and varying test combinations at the time of reimplantation indicate an increased risk of subsequent persistent infection after reimplantation? METHODS: We retrospectively studied the electronic medical records of all 53 patients who had two-stage revisions for PJI and who underwent plasma D-dimer testing before reimplantation at one of two academic institutions from November 22, 2017 to December 5, 2020. During that period, all patients undergoing two-stage revisions also had a D-dimer test drawn. The minimum follow-up duration was 1 year. We are reporting at this early interval (rather than the more typical 2-year time point) because of the poorer-than-expected performance of this diagnostic test. Of these 53 patients, 17% (9) were lost to follow-up before 1 year and could not be analyzed; the remaining 44 patients (17 hips and 27 knees) were studied here. The mean follow-up was 503 ± 135 days. Absence or persistence of infection after reimplantation were defined according to the Delphi criteria. The conditions included in these criteria were: (1) control of infection, as characterized by a healed wound without fistula, drainage, or pain; (2) no subsequent surgical intervention owing to infection after reimplantation; and (3) no occurrence of PJI-related mortality. The absence of any of the aforementioned conditions until the final follow-up examination was deemed a persistent infection after reimplantation. Baseline patient characteristics were not different between patients with persistent infection (n = 10) and those with absence of it after reimplantation (n = 34) as per the Delphi criteria. Baseline patient characteristics evaluated were age, gender, self-reported race (white/Black/other) or ethnicity (nonHispanic/Hispanic), BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, smoking status(smoker/nonsmoker), and joint type (hip/knee). The optimal D-dimer threshold to differentiate between persistence of infection or not after reimplantation was calculated using the Youden index. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to test the accuracy of D-dimer, ESR, CRP, and their combinations to establish associations, if any, with persistent infection after reimplantation. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (free of infection after reimplantation) with a log-rank test was performed to investigate if D-dimer, ESR, and CRP were associated with absence of infection after reimplantation. Survival or being free of infection after reimplantation was determined as per Delphi criteria. Alpha was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with an area under the curve of 0.62, D-dimer showed low accuracy and did not anticipate persistent infection after reimplantation. The optimal D-dimer threshold differentiating between persistence of infection or not after reimplantation was 3070 ng/mL. When using this threshold, D-dimer demonstrated a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 55.5% to 99.7%) and negative predictive value of 94% (95% CI 70.7% to 99.1%), but low specificity (47% [95% CI 29.8% to 64.9%]) and positive predictive value (33% [95% CI 25.5% to 42.2%]). Although D-dimer showed the highest sensitivity, the combination of D-dimer with ESR and CRP showed the highest specificity (91% [95% CI 75.6% to 98%]) defining the persistence of infection after reimplantation. Based on plasma D-dimer levels, with the numbers available, there was no difference in survival free from infection after reimplantation (Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from infection at minimum 1 year in patients with D-dimer below 3070 ng/mL versus survivorship free from infection with D-dimer above 3070 ng/mL: 749 days [95% CI 665 to 833 days] versus 615 days [95% CI 471 to 759 days]; p = 0.052). Likewise, there were no associations between high ESR and CRP levels and persistent infection after reimplantation, but the number of events was very small, and insufficient power is a concern with this analysis. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary series, with the numbers available, D-dimer alone had poor accuracy and was not associated with survival free from infection after reimplantation in patients who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty. D-dimer alone might be used to establish that PJI is unlikely, and the combination of D-dimer, ESR, and CRP should be considered to confirm PJI diagnosis in the setting of reimplantation.Level of Evidence Level IV, diagnostic study.

Florida State Opioid Prescription Restriction Law: Impact on Opioid Utilization After Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid epidemic, Florida recently passed the opioid prescription limiting law, effective since July 1st, 2018. However, its impact on opioid prescription after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has not been elucidated. Thus, our objective was to assess if this new law led to reduced opioid prescription after TJA and to determine its impact on perioperative clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on a consecutive series of 658 primary TJAs (618 patients), performed by four surgeons in a single institution [1/2/2018-10/23/2018]. Based on effective date of the law, cases were divided into: prelaw (327 cases; 168 hips/159 knees) and postlaw (331 cases; 191 hips/140 knees) phases. Baseline demographics and surgical characteristics were compared. The effect of the law on perioperative outcomes: length of stay, complications, emergency department/office visits, patient phone calls, reoperation or readmission (90 days), and total morphine equivalents prescribed was investigated. Independent sample t-tests and chi-square analyses were performed. RESULTS: Prelaw and postlaw phases had no significant difference in baseline demographics and characteristics. No difference was found in length of stay. Opioid law implementation led to significantly lower total oral morphine equivalents after TJAs [Prelaw: 1059.9 ± 825.4 vs postlaw: 942.8 ± 691.7; P = .04], but did not result in a significant increase in 90-day complications, patient visits (office or emergency) or phone calls, and reoperation or readmission. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that Florida state opioid prescription limiting law has resulted in a marked decline in opioid prescription without any increase in rates of patient visits, phone calls, or readmission after TJA.

Periprosthetic Tibial Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Early and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although periprosthetic fractures are increasing in prevalence, evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of periprosthetic tibial fractures (PTx) are lacking. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes in PTx after a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) which were treated with different treatment options. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a consecutive series of 34 nontumor patients treated at 2 academic institutions who experienced a PTx after TKA (2008-2016). Felix classification was used to classify fractures (Felix = I-II-III; subgroup = A-B-C) which were treated by closed reduction, open reduction/internal fixation, revision TKA, or proximal tibial replacement. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. Failure of treatment was defined as any revision or reoperation. Independent t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, chi-squared analyses, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Patients with Felix I had more nonsurgical complications when compared to Felix III patients (P = .006). Felix I group developed more postoperative anemia requiring transfusion than Felix III group (P = .009). All fracture types had >30% revision and >50% readmission rate with infection being the most common cause. These did not differ between Felix fracture types. Patients who underwent proximal tibial replacement had higher rate of postoperative infection (P = .030), revision surgery (P = .046), and required more flap reconstructions (P = .005). CONCLUSION: PTx after a TKA is associated with high revision and readmission rates. Patients with Felix type I fractures are at higher risk of postoperative nonsurgical complications and anemia requiring transfusion. Fractures treated with proximal tibial replacement are more likely to develop postoperative infections and undergo revision surgery.

International Organism Profile of Periprosthetic Total Hip and Knee Infections.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce literature describing pathogens responsible for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) around the world. Therefore, we sought to describe periprosthetic joint infection causative organisms, rates of resistant organisms, and polymicrobial infections at 7 large institutions located in North/South America and Europe. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 654 periprosthetic hip (n = 361) and knee (n = 293) infections (January 2006 to October 2019) identified at Cleveland Clinic Ohio/Florida in the United States (US) (n = 159), Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires in Argentina (n = 99), Hospital Asociación Española in Uruguay (n = 130), Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital in the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 103), HELIOS Klinikum in Germany (n = 59), and Vreden Institute for Orthopedics in St. Petersburg, Russia (n = 104). Analyses were performed for the entire cohort, knees, and hips. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, the most frequent organisms identified were Staphylococcus aureus (24.8%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (21.7%). The incidence of organisms resistant to at least one antibiotic was 58% and there was a significant difference between hips (62.3%) and knees (52.6%) (P = .014). Rates of resistant organisms among countries were 37.7% (US), 66.7% (Argentina), 71.5% (Uruguay), 40.8% (UK), 62.7% (Germany), and 77.9% (Russia) (P < .001). The overall incidence of polymicrobial infections was 9.3% and the rates across nations were 9.4% in the US, 11.1% in Argentina, 4.6% in Uruguay, 4.9% in UK, 11.9% in Germany, and 16.3% in Russia (P = .026). CONCLUSION: In the evaluated institutions, S aureus and S epidermidis accounted for almost 50% of all infections. The US and the UK had the lowest incidence of resistant organisms while Germany and Russia had the highest. The UK and Uruguay had the lowest rates of polymicrobial infections.

Evolution of Diagnostic Definitions for Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Various definitions and biomarkers have been developed in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a "gold standard" for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis. The development of the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria facilitated further research and advances by allowing the use of a consistent PJI definition across studies. The newly proposed 2018 criteria do not rely at all on expert opinions/consensus. In this review, we describe the most relevant definitions developed throughout recent time, their rationale, characteristics, and supportive evidence for their clinical implementation. In the opinion of the authors, the orthopedic community should consider a probability and likelihood paradigm to create a PJI diagnostic definition. Probably not a single definition might be suited for all situations; the inclusion of serological findings could be the next step moving forward.

Hospital Adverse Events and Perioperative Outcomes in Bilateral Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hospital adverse events represent a significant outcome that is often overlooked. Even "minor events" such as fever or tachycardia may lead to significant costs due to workup tests, interconsultations, and/or increased length of stay (LOS). The optimal timing of bilateral direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA-THA) remains unsettled. Consequently, we wanted to compare hospital LOS, discharge disposition, hospital adverse events (major and minor), and transfusion rates between simultaneous and staged bilateral DAA-THA. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on a consecutive series of 347 primary bilateral DAA-THAs (204 patients) performed by 2 surgeons in a single institution (2010-2016). The hips finally included were categorized as simultaneous (Sim-n = 61), staged 1 (Stg1-n = 143), or staged 2 (Stg2-n = 143). We also compared simultaneous with staged surgeries performed ≤1 and >1 year apart. Baseline demographics, LOS, discharge disposition, hospital adverse events, and transfusions were assessed. RESULTS: The simultaneous group had significantly younger patients and a higher proportion of males when compared with the staged groups and showed significant longer LOS [2.61 (Sim) vs 2.06 (Stg1) vs 1.63 (Stg2) days, P < .001], lower proportion of home discharge [77% (Sim) vs 91.6% (Stg1) vs 96.5% (Stg2), P < .001], as well as higher (overall) rate of adverse events [31.1% (Sim) vs 28.7% (Stg1) vs 14.0% (Stg2), P = .003] and transfusions [45.9% (Sim) vs 6.3% (Stg1) vs 7.0% (Stg2), P < .001]. However, most transfusions were autologous [37.7% (Sim) vs 3.5% (Stg1) vs 0% (Stg2), P < .001]. CONCLUSION: Our data show that bilateral DAA-THAs performed in a staged fashion, rather than simultaneously, have a shorter hospital LOS and decreased rates of adverse events and overall transfusions. Notwithstanding, simultaneous surgery should still be considered an option in selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Does the Timing of the Second Surgery of a Staged Bilateral Total Joint Arthroplasty Affect the Rate of Hospital Adverse Events and Perioperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of the second surgery in primary staged bilateral total hip/knee arthroplasty remains uncertain. Perioperative hospital adverse events represent a significant issue, even "minor events" lead to substantial costs in workup tests, interconsultations, and/or increased hospital length-of-stay (LOS). Therefore, we sought to ascertain whether the timing of the second arthroplasty affects perioperative outcomes and/or rates of adverse events. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 670 primary staged bilateral total hip/knee arthroplasty performed by 2 surgeons (2010-2016) at a single institution. The days between both arthroplasties were calculated for each pair of hips or knees. We evaluated demographics and LOS, discharge disposition, adverse events (ie, nausea, pulmonary embolism), and transfusion rates. The second arthroplasties (n = 335) were set apart in 2 groups based on the time they were done with respect to their corresponding contralateral first arthroplasty using 3 different thresholds: (1) ≤90 vs >90 days, (2) ≤180 vs >180 days, and (3) ≤365 vs >365 days. RESULTS: No significant differences in outcome comparisons were observed using either 90 or 180 days thresholds. However, using the 365 days thresholds, the mean LOS (2.21 vs 1.92 days, P = .015), adverse event (26% vs 15.3%, P = .021), total transfusion (7.4% vs 1.5%, P = .020), and allogeneic transfusion (6.9% vs 1.5%, P = .033) rates were significantly higher in second arthroplasties performed at or less than 1 year apart from the first, respectively. CONCLUSION: Staging the second arthroplasty more than a year apart from the first one seems to offer better LOS and rates of hospital adverse events, transfusions. However, unless patients are willing to wait a year between surgeries, our data also suggest no increased risk in regards to adverse events when proceeding before or after 90/180 days. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The Utility of Serum d-Dimer for the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce and contradicting evidence supporting the use of serum d-dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in revision total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test the accuracy of serum d-dimer against the 2013 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a consecutive series of 172 revision THA/TKA surgeries performed by 3 fellowship-trained surgeons at a single institution (August 2017 to May 2019) and that had d-dimer performed during their preoperative workup. Of this cohort, 111 (42 THAs/69 TKAs) cases had complete 2013 ICM criteria tests and were included in the final analysis. Septic and aseptic revisions were categorized per 2013 ICM criteria ("gold standard") and compared against serum d-dimer using an established threshold (850 ng/mL). Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and positive/negative predictive values were determined. Independent t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, chi-squared tests, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were performed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in baseline demographics between septic and aseptic cases per 2013 ICM criteria. When compared to ICM criteria, d-dimer demonstrated high sensitivity (95.9%) and negative predictive value (90.9%) but low specificity (32.3%), positive predictive value (52.8%), and overall, poor accuracy (61%) to diagnose periprosthetic joint infection. Positive likelihood ratio was 1.42 while negative likelihood ratio was 0.13. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.742. CONCLUSION: Serum d-dimer has poor accuracy to discriminate between septic and aseptic cases using a described threshold in the setting of revision THA and TKA.

What Is the Optimal Criteria to Use for Detecting Periprosthetic Joint Infections Before Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to (1) test the accuracy of α-defensin and combined α-defensin-aspiration cultures in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) before revision total knee and hip arthroplasty and (2) evaluate Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and α-defensin as predictors of successful reimplantation (second-stage) at 1 year after surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a total of 97 synovial fluid aspirations performed between August 2014 and September 2016 before revision due to septic or aseptic failures (n = 70) or before second-stage (n = 27) joint arthroplasty. Revisions were categorized as either septic or aseptic according to the MSIS criteria. Synovial fluid was tested for α-defensin, cell count with differential, and cultures. Reimplantations were assessed for success or failure (defined as the need for reoperation due to infection) within 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: For septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predicted value of α-defensin was 97% while for the combined α-defensin and aspiration culture, it was 96%, 100%, 100%, and 97%. Despite being performed with negative MSIS criteria and α-defensin test results, 11% (3/27) of reimplantations (second-stage) failed within 1 year postoperatively because of infection. CONCLUSION: Alpha-defensin is an accurate diagnostic test for the diagnosis of PJI before revision arthroplasty. The combination of α-defensin and aspiration cultures has higher specificity and positive predictive value. MSIS criteria and α-defensin may help predict the success of reimplantations within 1 year after surgery.

Anthropometric Measurements of Knee Joints in the Hispanic Population.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems provide a set of incrementally sized tibial and femoral components intended to accommodate most knee parameters. However, the most commonly used systems in the United States were developed using data from Caucasian patients which might not lead to the best fit in non-Caucasians. Therefore, we wanted to evaluate whether these TKA systems proportionally match femoral and tibial measurements in Hispanics. METHODS: All lower extremity magnetic resonance imaging performed at our institution between January 2007 and October 2015 were screened. A total of 500 nonarthritic knees from the same number of Hispanic patients were included in this retrospective descriptive radiographic study. Intraoperative osseous TKA resections were simulated on magnetic resonance imaging. Linear regression analyses were used to contrast the mediolateral (ML) width/anteroposterior (AP) length of simulated resected femoral condyle and tibia with the ML/AP dimensions of components offered by 4 current TKA systems. RESULTS: Simulated resected male femurs tended to be wider than most TKA system components for a given AP size, probably leading to component ML underhang. Altogether, systems studied accommodated most AP and ML measurements of female condyles. However, we identified subsets of Hispanic female patients with certain AP lengths and/or ML widths that particular knee systems could not accommodate. Resected male and female tibias tended to be slightly narrower than all TKA systems for a given AP size. CONCLUSION: The results of our study provide valuable data concerning the unique morphology of the Hispanic knee. These data can assist surgeons in the selection of the most suitable TKA systems for these patients.

Effectiveness of Novel Adjuncts in Pain Management Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant pain which can negatively impact outcomes. Multiple strategies have been employed to reduce pain. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of 3 different pain management modalities after TKA that included (1) our standardized knee injection cocktail and oral acetaminophen, (2) liposomal bupivacaine periarticular injection and oral acetaminophen, and (3) our standardized knee injection cocktail and intravenous (IV) acetaminophen. METHODS: A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted with 3 perioperative pain management regimes: oral acetaminophen and our standardized knee injection cocktail (standard group), oral acetaminophen and liposomal bupivacaine periarticular injection (LB group), and IV acetaminophen and our standardized knee injection cocktail (IVA group). Primary outcome measures included visual analog scale, total morphine equivalents, and the opioid-related symptoms distress scale at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences on visual analog scale/opioid-related symptoms distress scale scores 24 hours after surgery. The LB group required significantly more narcotics (total morphine equivalents) than the standard (P = .025) and IVA groups (P = .032). No significant differences were observed on any of the outcomes measured at 48 hours after surgery. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that there is no added benefit in the routine use of IV acetaminophen or liposomal bupivacaine after TKA.

Prolonged Conservative Management in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Harming the Patient?

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand the long-term consequences of postponing total joint arthroplasty until the onset of severe functional impairment. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to determine and compare the midterm to long-term postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty with severe vs less severe preoperative functional impairment. METHODS: A total of 105 primary unilateral total hip/knee arthroplasty patients were studied. Patients were divided into 2 groups-severely functionally impaired (preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index function ≥51 points) and functionally impaired (preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index function <51 points). RESULTS: At an average of 11.2 years postoperatively, the patients who were severely functionally impaired preoperatively had worse outcomes than did the patients with less severe preoperative functional impairment. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, after surgery, it is unlikely that patients who are severely functionally impaired preoperatively will ever catch up to patients who have the surgery with less severe functional impairment.