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.

Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated.

OBJECTIVES: Published data on the natural history of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) are inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We investigated the natural history of LGD in a large community-based cohort of BE patients after reviewing the original histological diagnosis by an expert panel of pathologists. METHODS: Histopathology reports of all patients diagnosed with LGD between 2000 and 2006 in six non-university hospitals were reviewed by two expert pathologists. This panel diagnosis was subsequently compared with the histological outcome during prospective endoscopic follow-up. RESULTS: A diagnosis of LGD was made in 147 patients. After pathology review, 85% of the patients were downstaged to non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) or to indefinite for dysplasia. In only 15% of the patients was the initial diagnosis LGD. Endoscopic follow-up was carried out in 83.6% of patients, with a mean follow-up of 51.1 months. For patients with a consensus diagnosis of LGD, the cumulative risk of progressing to high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (HGD or Ca) was 85.0% in 109.1 months compared with 4.6% in 107.4 months for patients downstaged to NDBE (P<0.0001). The incidence rate of HGD or Ca was 13.4% per patient per year for patients in whom the diagnosis of LGD was confirmed. For patients downstaged to NDBE, the corresponding incidence rate was 0.49%. CONCLUSIONS: LGD in BE is an overdiagnosed and yet underestimated entity in general practice. Patients diagnosed with LGD should undergo an expert pathology review to purify this group. In case the diagnosis of LGD is confirmed, patients should undergo strict endoscopic follow-up or should be considered for endoscopic ablation therapy.

Quality of Barrett's surveillance in The Netherlands: a standardized review of endoscopy and pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: The quality of Barrett's surveillance relies on an adequate endoscopic inspection, obtaining a sufficient number of biopsy specimens, good communication of the endoscopic findings to the pathologist, and an accurate description of the histological findings by the pathologist. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of Barrett's surveillance in daily practice in The Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured scoring list was developed to evaluate systematically the quality of endoscopy and pathology reports. From 15 hospitals, endoscopy reports and corresponding pathology reports were selected randomly and evaluated by two observers. In case of disagreement, the observers re-evaluated the reports in a consensus meeting. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty cases were evaluated. The adherence to current standard biopsy protocols (four quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) decreased with increasing Barrett's length: 0-5 cm: 79%; 5-10 cm: 50%; 10-15 cm: 30%. The indication for the endoscopy was mentioned in 28% of the pathology reports, in 4% the presence/absence of oesophagitis was communicated, and in 19% the location and/or aetiology of biopsies was described. The presence/absence of dysplasia was mentioned in 93% of pathology reports. CONCLUSION: Endoscopy reports and pathology reports in current practice do not include all relevant information for an adequate Barrett's surveillance. In short Barrett's oesophagus, the adherence to current standard biopsy protocols is acceptable, but in longer segments (with a higher risk for neoplastic progression) this is clearly insufficient. The communication between endoscopists and pathologist is suboptimal.