If, When, and How to Use Rifampin in Acute Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infections, a Multicentre Observational Study.

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.

Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Is a Viable Treatment Option for Early Periprosthetic Joint Infection Presenting More Than 4 Weeks After Index Arthroplasty.

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.

A Second Surgical Debridement for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infections Should Not Be Discarded.

BACKGROUND: In acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), a second surgical debridement (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention [DAIR]) is generally not recommended after a failed first one. We identified the failure rate of a second DAIR and aimed to identify patients in whom an additional debridement might still be beneficial. METHODS: Patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee and treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. A second DAIR was routinely performed provided that the soft tissue was intact. Failure of a second DAIR was described as (1) the need for additional surgical intervention to achieve infection control, (2) the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy due to persistent clinical and/or biochemical signs of infection, or (3) PJI related death. RESULTS: From the 455 cases treated with DAIR, 144 cases underwent a second debridement (34.6%). Thirty-seven cases failed (37/144, 25.7%). The implant needed to be removed in 23 cases (23/144, 16%). Positive cultures during the second DAIR (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.29-7.74) and chronic renal insufficiency (odds ratio 13.6, 95% confidence interval 2.03-91.33) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis. No difference in failure was observed between persistent infection with the same microorganism and reinfection with a new microorganism (failure rate 31.6% vs 34.6%, P = .83). CONCLUSION: A second DAIR had a low failure rate in our cohort of patients and the implant could be retained in the majority of them. Therefore, a second DAIR should not be discarded in acute PJIs.

Persistent Wound Drainage After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Persistent wound drainage after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is an important complication with potential substantial adverse consequences, in particular periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: This review evaluated the available literature regarding several issues in the field of persistent wound drainage after TJA and offers a classification of persistent wound drainage and an algorithmic approach to the decision-making process. RESULTS: Available literature addressing the diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound drainage after TJA is scarce and an evidence-based clinical guideline is lacking. This is partially caused by the absence of a universally accepted definition of persistent wound drainage. In patients with persistent wound drainage, clinical signs and serological tests can be helpful in the diagnosis of a developing infection. Regarding the treatment of persistent wound drainage, nonsurgical treatment consists of absorbent dressings, pressure bandages, and temporary joint immobilization. Surgical treatment is advised when wound drainage persists for more than 5-7 days and consists of open debridement with irrigation and exchange of modular components and antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSION: Based on this literature review, we proposed a classification and algorithmic approach for the management of patients with persistent wound drainage after TJA. Hopefully, this offers the orthopedic surgeon a practical clinical guideline by finding the right balance between overtreatment and undertreatment, weighing the risks and benefits. However, this classification and algorithmic approach should first be evaluated in a prospective trial.

Use of gentamicin-impregnated beads or sponges in the treatment of early acute periprosthetic joint infection: a propensity score analysis.

Objectives: Early acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) have failure rates ranging from 10% to 60%. We determined the efficacy of applying local gentamicin-impregnated beads and/or sponges during debridement in early PJI. Methods: Patients with early acute PJI, defined as less than 21 days of symptoms and treated with DAIR within 90 days after index surgery, were retrospectively evaluated. Early failure was defined as PJI-related death, the need for implant removal or a second DAIR or antibiotic suppressive therapy owing to persistent signs of infection, all within 60 days after initial debridement. Overall failure was defined as implant removal at any timepoint during follow-up. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to correct for confounding factors. Results: A total of 386 patients were included. Local gentamicin was applied in 293 patients (75.9%) and was withheld in 93 patients (24.1%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the use of local gentamicin was independently associated with early failure (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.12-3.48). After propensity matching, early failure was 40.3% in the gentamicin group versus 26.0% in the control group (P = 0.06) and overall failure was 5.2% in the gentamicin group versus 2.6% in the control group (P = 0.40). These numbers remained when solely analysing the application of gentamicin-impregnated sponges. Conclusions: Even after propensity score matching, failure rates remained higher if local gentamicin-impregnated beads and/or sponges were administered in early acute PJI. Based on these results, their use should be discouraged.

Predicting Failure in Early Acute Prosthetic Joint Infection Treated With Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention: External Validation of the KLIC Score.

BACKGROUND: Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely used treatment modality for early acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI). A preoperative risk score was previously designed for predicting DAIR failure, consisting of chronic renal failure (K), liver cirrhosis (L), index surgery (I), cemented prosthesis (C), and C-reactive protein >115 mg/L (KLIC). The aim of this study was to validate the KLIC score in an external cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with early acute PJI treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 in 3 Dutch hospitals. Early acute PJI was defined as <21 days of symptoms and DAIR performed within 90 days after index surgery. Failure was defined as the need for (1) second DAIR, (2) implant removal, (3) suppressive antimicrobial treatment, or (4) infection-related death within 60 days after debridement. RESULTS: A total of 386 patients were included. Failure occurred in 148 patients (38.3%). Patients with KLIC scores of ≤2, 2.5-3.5, 4-5, 5.5-6.5, and ≥7 had failure rates of 27.9%, 37.1%, 49.3%, 54.5%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < .001). The receiver-operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.69). A KLIC score higher than 6 points showed a specificity of 97.9%. CONCLUSION: The KLIC score is a relatively good preoperative risk score for DAIR failure in patients with early acute PJI and appears to be most useful in clinical practice for patients with low or high KLIC scores.

Wound drainage after arthroplasty and prediction of acute prosthetic joint infection: prospective data from a multicentre cohort study using a telemonitoring app.

Background: Differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated postoperative wound drainage after arthroplasty is crucial to prevent unnecessary reoperation. Prospective data about the duration and amount of postoperative wound drainage in patients with and without prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are currently absent. Methods: A multicentre cohort study was conducted to assess the duration and amount of wound drainage in patients after arthroplasty. During 30 postoperative days after arthroplasty, patients recorded their wound status in a previously developed wound care app and graded the amount of wound drainage on a 5-point scale. Data about PJI in the follow-up period were extracted from the patient files. Results: Of the 1019 included patients, 16 patients (1.6 %) developed a PJI. Minor wound drainage decreased from the first to the fourth postoperative week from 50 % to 3 %. Both moderate to severe wound drainage in the third week and newly developed wound drainage in the second week after a week without drainage were strongly associated with PJI (odds ratio (OR) 103.23, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 26.08 to 408.57, OR 80.71, 95 % CI 9.12 to 714.52, respectively). The positive predictive value (PPV) for PJI was 83 % for moderate to heavy wound drainage in the third week. Conclusion: Moderate to heavy wound drainage and persistent wound drainage were strongly associated with PJI. The PPV of wound drainage for PJI was high for moderate to heavy drainage in the third week but was low for drainage in the first week. Therefore, additional parameters are needed to guide the decision to reoperate on patients for suspected acute PJI.

Obese patients have higher rates of polymicrobial and Gram-negative early periprosthetic joint infections of the hip than non-obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients are more likely to develop periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total joint arthroplasty. This study compared the clinical and microbiological characteristics of non-obese, obese and severely obese patients with early PJI, in order to ultimately optimize antibiotic prophylaxis and other prevention measures for this specific patient category. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with early PJI of the hip and knee treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) between 2006 and 2016 in three Dutch hospitals. Only patients with primary arthroplasties indicated for osteoarthritis were included. Early PJI was defined as an infection that developed within 90 days after index surgery. Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥30kg/m2 and severe obesity as a BMI ≥35kg/m2. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were analyzed, including 64 obese patients (27.0%) and 62 severely obese patients (26.2%). Compared with non-obese patients, obese patients had higher rates of polymicrobial infections (60.3% vs 33.3%, p<0.001) with more often involvement of Enterococcus species (27.0% vs 11.7%, p = 0.003). Moreover, severely obese patients had more Gram-negative infections, especially with Proteus species (12.9% vs 2.3%, p = 0.001). These results were only found in periprosthetic hip infections, comprising Gram-negative PJIs in 34.2% of severely obese patients compared with 24.7% in obese patients and 12.7% in non-obese patients (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that obese patients with early periprosthetic hip infections have higher rates of polymicrobial infections with enterococci and Gram-negative rods, which stresses the importance of improving preventive strategies in this specific patient category, by adjusting antibiotic prophylaxis regimens, improving disinfection strategies and optimizing postoperative wound care.

Managing persistent wound leakage after total knee and hip arthroplasty. Results of a nationwide survey among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons.

Background: Persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty is a scantily investigated topic, despite the claimed relation with a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection. This results in a lack of evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Without such guideline, clinical practice in orthopaedic hospitals varies widely. In preparation of a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on the optimal treatment of persistent wound leakage, we evaluated current Dutch orthopaedic care for persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire-based online survey among all 700 members of the Netherlands Orthopaedic Association, consisting of 23 questions on the definition, classification, diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 127 respondents, representing 68% of the Dutch hospitals that perform orthopaedic surgery. The results showed wide variation in the classification, definition, diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. 56.7% of the respondents used a protocol for diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage, but only 26.8% utilized the protocol in every patient. Most respondents (59.1%) reported a maximum period of persistent wound leakage before starting non-surgical treatment of 3 to 7 days after index surgery and 44.1% of respondents reported a maximum period of wound leakage of 10 days before converting to surgical treatment. Conclusions: The wide variety in clinical practice underscores the importance of developing an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of persistent wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. To this end, a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial will be conducted in the Netherlands, which may provide evidence on this important and poorly understood topic.

LEAK study: design of a nationwide randomised controlled trial to find the best way to treat wound leakage after primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are highly successful treatment modalities for advanced osteoarthritis. However, prolonged wound leakage after arthroplasty is linked to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which is a potentially devastating complication. On the one hand, wound leakage is reported as a risk factor for PJI with a leaking wound acting as a porte d'entrée for micro-organisms. On the other hand, prolonged wound leakage can be a symptom of PJI. Literature addressing prolonged wound leakage is scarce, contradictory and of poor methodological quality. Hence, treatment of prolonged wound leakage varies considerably with both non-surgical and surgical treatment modalities. There is a definite need for evidence concerning the best way to treat prolonged wound leakage after joint arthroplasty. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective nationwide randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 35 hospitals in the Netherlands. The goal is to include 388 patients with persistent wound leakage 9-10 days after THA or TKA. These patients will be randomly allocated to non-surgical treatment (pressure bandages, (bed) rest and wound care) or surgical treatment (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR)). DAIR will also be performed on all non-surgically treated patients with persistent wound leakage at day 16-17 after index surgery, regardless of amount of wound leakage, other clinical parameters or C reactive protein. Clinical data are entered into a web-based database. Patients are asked to fill in questionnaires about disease-specific outcomes, quality of life and cost effectiveness at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Primary outcome is the number of revision surgeries due to infection within a year of arthroplasty. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Review Board of each participating hospital has approved the local feasibility. The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5960;Pre-results.