Periprosthetic joint infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with higher complication and mortality rates.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains the most devasting complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). There has been a significant focus on this topic in recently-published medical literature. However, relatively little has been published about PJI in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which are often physiologically frail and immunocompromised. A better understanding of PJI in this patient population is therefore crucial. The main aims of this paper are to (1) report complication and mortality rates in a cohort of PJI-RA patients; and (2) clinically characterize them. METHODS: Medical and surgical records of all RA PJI patients treated surgically from 2003 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Medical history, physical examination, reactive protein (CRP) level, procalcitonin, white blood cell (WBC) count, joint aspiration results, and cultures were used to determine PJI. RESULTS: 54PJIs, 49 of them chronic, were treated in 53RA patients. Mean patient age was 65 yrs. (range = 32-88); 33females and 20 males (one bilateral hip). The overall mortality rate was 18.9%(n = 10), with five deaths directly attributed to PJI. Staphylococci accounted for 34 infections (63%), while 11(20.4%) had multiorganism infections and six culture-negative PJI. At the end of treatment 79.6%(n = 43) still had an implanted TJR, 7.4% (n = 4) had spacers, 5.6%(n = 3) had undergone resection arthroplasty, 3.7%(n = 2) arthrodesis, and one each amputation and exarticulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and specially complication rates were (are) high in this RA patients group presenting PJI. Delays to diagnosis and treatment may explain some of these poor outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: A cohort level III retrospective study.

What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

PURPOSE: Re-operation after septic failure of a one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is a highly challenging procedure with concerns over residual bone stock, soft tissues, and stability. The associated changes in microbiology in cases of reinfection are still largely unknown. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis was performed of all patients treated at our tertiary institution between 2001 and 2017 who developed reinfection after a one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. Prerequisites for inclusion were a certain diagnosis of PJI according to the ICM criteria and a minimum follow-up of three years. Data on comorbidities, previous surgical interventions, microbiological findings at the time of the initial one-stage exchange and at the time of reinfection, detection methods, and antibiotic resistance patterns were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Reinfection occurred after a mean time interval of 27.7 months (SD ± 33.9, range 1-165). Ten types of bacteria were found that were not present before the one-stage exchange. The causative pathogen remained identical in 22 patients (33%) and additional microorganisms were detected in ten patients (15%). Half of the reinfections were however due to (a) completely different microorganism(s). A significant increase in the number of PJIs on the basis of high-virulent (23 vs 30, p = 0.017) and difficult-to-treat bacteria (13 vs 24, p = 0.035) was found. CONCLUSION: The present study provides a novel insight into the microbiological changes following septic failure after one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. A higher prevalence of more difficult-to-treat bacteria might increase the complexity of subsequent procedures. Also, a longer follow-up of these patients than previously suggested seems in order.

Outcomes following non-operatively managed periprosthetic fractures surrounding uncemented femoral stems.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to explore the outcomes of Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures that were managed non-operatively with a particular focus on 1-year mortality. Understanding this mortality data will allow surgeons to better understand the risk associated with non-operative management. The secondary aim was to evaluate our case series and current literature with regards to identifying suitable patients for non-operative treatment. METHODS: Our electronic fracture database was interrogated for all Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures treated at our institution between April 2009 to April 2019; 18 patients were identified. All available data was then collected from radiographic, electronic and paper notes. A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED and EMBASE databases was then conducted with all relevant literature reviewed. RESULTS: 1-year mortality of these patients was noted at 22.2%; highlighting the severity of these injuries. No patients required conversion to surgical management, sustained a dislocation or went into non-union. With regards to literature no case series focussing on non-operative management outcomes were reported. There was a marked paucity of literature relating to conservative management of these injuries. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first published case series focussing solely on nonoperatively managed Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures. This paper provides evidence from the first reported case series with which surgeons can counsel patients on the significant mortality risk associated with these fractures. Non-operative management of periprosthetic hip fractures is possible after careful analysis of the fracture configuration, implant and patient characteristics. Whilst we have outlined several findings from our first reported case series, further research is required from a larger prospective case series in order to make evidence based recommendations.

Results of the first 1,000 procedures after resumption of elective orthopedic services following COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of a high-volume arthroplasty center.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a screening questionnaire to identify high-risk patients for novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) among those undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 4th, 2020 and June 11th, 2020, a total of 1,021 consecutive patients (492 males, 529 females; mean age: 62.3±15.1 years; range, 13 to 91 years) who were scheduled for elective orthopedic surgery were included. A screening questionnaire was applied to all patients. The patients admitted to hospital were also tested for COVID-19 infection through reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of the nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS: Of the patients, 1,003 (98.2%) underwent elective surgery as planned. The screening questionnaire classified 30 patients as high-risk for COVID-19. A total of 18 procedures (n=18, 1.8%) were postponed due to the high risk of possible transmission of COVID-19. None of 991 low-risk patients were tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The use of guiding principles for resuming elective orthopedic surgery is safe without a higher risk for complications in selected cases.