BACKGROUND: Two-stage septic revision is the prevailing method for addressing late periprosthetic infections. Using at least dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement leads to synergistic effects with a more efficient elution of individual antibiotics. Recent data on the success rates of multiantibiotic cement spacers in two-stage revisions are rare. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective follow-up single-center study involving 250 patients with late periprosthetic hip infections and 95 patients with prosthetic knee infections who underwent septic two-stage prosthesis revision surgery between 2017 and 2021. In accordance with the antibiotic susceptibility profile of the microorganisms, a specific mixture of antibiotics within the cement spacer was used, complemented by systemic antibiotic treatment. All patients underwent preoperative assessments and subsequent evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post operation and at the most recent follow-up. RESULTS: During the observation period, the survival rate after two-step septic revision was 90.7%. Although survival rates tended to be slightly lower for difficult-to-treat (DTT) microorganism, there was no difference between the pathogen groups (easy-to-treat (ETT) pathogens, methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS), and difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens). Furthermore, there were no differences between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections. No difference in the survival rate was observed between patients with dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement without an additional admixture (Copal® G+C and Copal® G+V) and patients with an additional admixture of antibiotics to proprietary cement. CONCLUSION: Employing multiple antibiotics within spacer cement, tailored to pathogen susceptibility, appears to provide reproducibly favorable success rates, even in instances of infections with DTT pathogens and polymicrobial infections.
The rising number of arthroplasties is combined with a rising number of periprosthetic joint infections, which leads to life-concerning consequences for the patients, including extended antibiotic treatment, further surgery and increased mortality. The heterogeneity of the symptoms and inflammatory response of the patients due to, e.g., age and comorbidities and the absence of a single diagnostic test with 100% accuracy make it very challenging to choose the right parameters to confirm or deny a periprosthetic joint infection and to establish a standardized definition. In recent years, additional diagnostic possibilities have emerged primarily through the increasing availability of new diagnostic methods, such as genetic techniques. The aim of the review is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge about the various tests, including the latest developments. The combination of different tests increases the accuracy of the diagnosis. Each physician or clinical department must select the tests from the available methods that can be best implemented for them in organizational and technical terms. Serological parameters and the cultivation of the samples from aspiration or biopsy should be combined with additional synovial tests to create an accurate figure for the failure of the prosthesis, while imaging procedures are used to obtain additional information for the planned therapeutic procedure.
AIM: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) can lead to secondary osteoarthritis of the other compartments. The objective of this study was to identify the frequency of PJIs in cases of UKA with progressed secondary osteoarthritis and the result of septic one-stage revision in these cases to verify the value of preoperative aspiration in cases of secondary osteoarthritis of UKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 97 patients with a unicompartmental arthroplasty who underwent revision surgery to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between January 2013 and March 2021 because of subsequent osteoarthritis. Preoperative aspiration and sample collection during the revision surgery were employed to identify potential periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The post-revision period was monitored for septic complications over an average duration of 55.7 ± 25.2 months (24-113). RESULTS: PJIs were identified in 5.2% of cases through preoperative aspiration. In all instances of PJIs, a one-stage septic revision was performed, and notably, none of these cases experienced septic complications during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative aspiration is essential in order to exclude the presence of a PJI before performing revision surgery of UKA due to secondary osteoarthritis.
BACKGROUND: Graphic type differentiation of cell count data of synovial aspirates is a new method for the diagnosis of early and late periprosthetic joint infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyse if the same 6 LMNE-types can be differentiated in the new Yumizen H500 cell counter as it was the case for the old cell counter ABX Pentra XL 80 of previous publications, to verify if the erythrocyte and thrombocyte curves of the new device give additional information and to calculate the difference of cell count in LMNE-type I and III (with abrasion) in the cell counter and in the manual counting chamber (Neubauer improved). METHODS: 450 aspirates of 152 total hip arthroplasties and 298 knee arthroplasties obtained for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection were analysed with the Yumizen H500. RESULTS: All LMNE-matrices of the 450 aspirates could assigned to one of the six LMNE-types. There were 76 LMNE-type I, 72 LMNE-type II, 14 LMNE-type III, 241 LMNE-type IV, 36 LMNE-type V and 12 LMNE-type VI. The erythrocyte and thrombocyte distribution curves were very helpful for differentiation of hematoma and infection. The cell count in the manual counting procedure was lower than in the cell counter: for the LMNE-type I (abrasion type) the median of the difference was 925/µL (median) and for the LMNE-type III (combined type of infection and abrasion) 3570/µL (median). CONCLUSION: The described graphic type differentiation is a new and helpful method for differentiation of hematoma and early PJI as well as abrasion and late PJI.
BACKGROUND: Synovitis, like that associated with chronic bacterial arthritis, is a very rare finding during the implantation of knee endoprostheses. In such cases, we fix the knee prostheses with cement containing two antibiotics and carry out a course of systemic antibiotic administration. The aim was to analyze these cases for incidence, detection of bacteria, risk factors, and outcome. METHODS: Out of 7534 knee replacements between January 2013 and December 2020, 25 cases were suspected during the surgical procedure to have suffered from bacterial arthritis and were treated accordingly. Total synovectomy was carried out, whereby five intraoperative synovial samples were examined bacteriologically, and the complete synovitis was analyzed histologically. The mean follow-up was 65.3 ± 27.1 (24-85) months. RESULTS: In nine cases (0.12%), the diagnosis of bacterial arthritis was made histologically and by clinical chemistry (elevated CRP), and in two of these cases, pathogen verification was performed. Eight of these nine patients had previously had injections or surgery associated with the corresponding knee joint or had an underlying immunomodulatory disease. None of the patients developed a periprosthetic infection at a later stage. CONCLUSION: With an incidence of 0.12%, it is rare to unexpectedly detect bacterial synovitis during surgery. Total synovectomy, use of bone cement with two antibiotics, and immediate systemic antibiotic therapy seem to keep the risk of periprosthetic infection low.
