[Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection : Development of an evidence-based algorithm by the work group of implant-associated infection of the AE-(German Society for Arthroplasty)]

[Arthroplasty and oral health-an overview]

Despite limited evidence for a preoperative dental screening examination and needs-based focal rehabilitation, as well as the need for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to invasive dental procedures, oral health is and remains a relevant topic in arthroplasty. The aspect of oral health should not be neglected in the future in connection with periprosthetic infections and should continue to be the subject of intensive research. The frequency of conspicuous dental findings in middle and old age underlines the importance of this problem. A dental examination prior to arthroplasty implantation can generally contribute to minimizing the risk of arthroplasty infection. It would be desirable for further studies to provide evidence on this topic in order to make recommendations for action. Independently of this, the development of an interdisciplinary guideline (arthroplasty and dentistry) on this topic should be encouraged. This could help to ensure that standardized treatment procedures are integrated into everyday clinical practice across the board.

Results of a monocentric field study: value of histology compared to sonication method and conventional tissue culture in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)

BACKGROUND

To confirm the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) have defined criteria that include histology as a minor criterion and the sonication method only as an additional criterion. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate the value of histology and whether sonication leads to a more accurate diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All revision surgeries for knee and hip arthroplasty between 2017 and 2020 were included. With regard to microbiological diagnostic, conventional culture of periprosthetic biopsies and sonication of explant material were performed. In addition, histology and non-specific inflammatory markers (CRP, leukocytes) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients with PJI and 62 aseptic controls were included. From both microbiological methods (conventional culture / sonication), Staphyloccus (S.) epidermidis and S. aureus were detected most frequently. However, compared to the conventional microbiology, a higher sensitivity was calculated for sonication, albeit with a lower specificity in relation to a PJI. In two logistic regression models for the significance of all diagnostic parameters in PJI, the AUC was 0.92 and 0.96 with histology in particular making the decisive contribution in both models (p < 0. 001, both models).

CONCLUSION

Since histology showed the highest accuracy in the current study, its importance in the PJI criteria should be reevaluated. Sonication shows a high sensitivity for germ detection with a lower specificity and should only be used in combination with the conventional culture for microbiolgical diagnostics.

Diagnostics in Late Periprosthetic Infections-Challenges and Solutions

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.

[Structured approach for infected prosthesis]

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthesis infections represent a major challenge for doctors and patients. Due to the increase in endoprosthesis implantation because of the increasing life expectancy, an increase in endoprosthesis infections is to be expected. In addition to infection prophylaxis, methods of infection control become highly relevant, especially in the group of geriatric and multimorbid patients. The aim is to reduce the high 1‑year mortality from prosthesis infections through a structured algorithm.

ALGORITHM FOR PROSTHESIS INFECTIONS

Prosthesis infections can basically be divided into early and late infections. According to the criteria of the International Consensus Meeting, a late infection is defined as the occurrence more than 30 days after implantation. With respect to the planned approach, the (p)TNM classification offers an orientation. In the early postoperative interval the clinical appearance is crucial as in this phase neither laboratory parameters nor an analysis of synovial fluid show a high sensitivity. It is fundamental that, apart from patients with sepsis, environment diagnostics should be initiated. If a late infection is suspected, in addition to radiological diagnostics (X-ray, skeletal scintigraphy and if necessary, computed tomography, CT), laboratory (C-reactive protein, CRP, leukocytes, blood sedimentation, and if necessary, interleukin‑6, procalcitonin) and microbiological diagnostics (arthrocentesis with synovial analysis and microbiology) are indicated; however, in addition to the arthrocentesis result, the clinical appearance is crucial in cases where an exclusion cannot be confirmed by laboratory parameters. If an infection is confirmed, the treatment depends on the spectrum of pathogens, the soft tissue situation and the comorbidities, including a multistage procedure with temporary explantation and, if necessary, implantation of an antibiotic-containing spacer is necessary. A prosthesis preservation using the debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) regimen is only appropriate in an acute infection situation. Basically, radical surgical debridement should be carried out to reduce the pathogen load and treatment of a possible biofilm formation for both early and late infections. The subsequent antibiotic treatment (short or long interval) should be coordinated with the infectious disease specialists.

CONCLUSION

A structured approach for prosthesis infections oriented to an evidence-based algorithm provides a sufficient possibility of healing. An interdisciplinary approach involving cooperation between orthopedic and infectious disease specialists has proven to be beneficial. Surgical treatment with the aim of reducing the bacterial load by removing the biofilm with subsequent antibiotic treatment is of intrinsic importance.

Rescuing Infected Deep Brain Stimulation Therapies in Severely Affected Patients

(1) Background: Infections in deep brain stimulation (DBS) hardware, while an undesired complication of DBS surgeries, can be effectively addressed. Minor infections are typically treated with wound revision and IV antibiotics. However, when visible hardware infection occurs, most centers opt for complete removal, leaving the patient in a preoperative state and necessitating post-removal care. To avoid the need for such care, a novel technique was developed. (2) Methods: The electrodes are placed at the exact same spot and then led to the contralateral side. new extensions and a new generator contralateral to the infection as well. Subsequently, the infected system is removed. This case series includes six patients. (3) Results: The average duration of DBS system implantation before the second surgery was 272 days. Only one system had to be removed after 18 months due to reoccurring infection; the others remained unaffected. Laboratory alterations and pathogens were identified in only half of the patients. (4) Conclusions: The described surgical technique proves to be safe, well tolerated, and serves as a viable alternative to complete system removal. Importantly, it effectively prevents the need of post-removal care for patients.

Oral Health Screening for Risk Reduction for Early Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Endoprostheses-Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

This prospective observational study had two aims: (I) to assess whether a preoperative dental screening before endoprosthesis (EP) implantation with need-based dental intervention would decrease the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and (II) to evaluate whether instructed orthopedic surgeons would achieve similar results in oral screening as dentists. The preoperative oral health statuses of the patients, prior to EP insertion, were either evaluated by the patients' general dentists (Ia) or, if the patient had not visited a general dentist, by an instructed orthopedic surgeon (Ib). Both the dentist and orthopedic surgeon used standardized risk estimation (low risk, moderate risk, and high risk) for an oral-health-related infectious complication after EP insertion, including a recommendation for further management of the patient. If required, a need-based dental rehabilitation was performed. In addition, retrospective data evaluation of a comparison group (II) was performed, which had not been screened orally preoperatively. A total of 777 patients (screening group (I): n = 402, of which 229 were screened by a dentist (Ia), 173 were screened by an orthopedic surgeon (Ib); comparison group (II): n = 375) were included. No general association between early infection rate and preoperative oral screening in general was found (1% PJI in screening group (I), 1.6% PJI in comparison group (II); p = 0.455). However, screening performance (dentist vs. orthopedic surgeon) had a significant impact on the prevalence of developed PJIs (p = 0.021). Thereby, 100% of observed infections in the screening group (I) occurred in the group with previous oral screening by an orthopedic surgeon (Ib). Furthermore, the C-reactive protein (CRP) value at discharge was significantly lower when general preoperative oral screening had been performed (group I vs. group II, p = 0.03). Only preoperative oral screening by a dentist had the potential to reduce oral-focus-associated EP infections; therefore, increased attention should be paid to the further promotion of interdisciplinary work between dentists and orthopedic surgeons. Dental screenings, using objectifiable criteria, as applied in this study, seem reasonable but require further validation in larger cohorts.

[Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation]

BACKGROUND AND PLANNING

Femoral revision represents a challenging procedure in its surgical planning and technical execution. The results are mainly dependent on the bone loss present, the quality of the implant removal and the choice of revision system. Patient-specific factors such as age, comorbidities, bone quality or even the localization of the cement have a decisive influence on the surgical strategy. Appropriate preoperative preparation, including the presence of the necessary special instruments, which are essential for gentle implant removal, is indispensable to achieve the best possible result.

THERAPY

A bone-sparing implant removal can be particularly challenging, especially in the case of well-fixed stems and cement residues, which may extend far beyond the isthmus. In such situations, a transfemoral approach should be considered. Cementless reimplantation using modular or non-modular titanium stems is currently the preferred treatment of choice for most revisions. In elderly, low-demand patients or with poor bone quality, cemented revision remains a good alternative treatment option.

Diagnosis of Chronic Infection at Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Is a Question of Definition

Purpose

Contradicting definitions of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are in use. Joint aspiration is performed before total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision. This study investigated the influence of PJI definition on PJI prevalence at THA revision. Test quality of prerevision aspiration was evaluated for the different PJI definitions.

Methods

256 THA revisions were retrospectively classified to be infected or not infected. Classification was performed according to the 4 different definitions proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the International Consensus Meeting (ICM), and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). Only chronic PJIs were included.

Results

PJI prevalence at revision significantly correlated with the applied PJI definition (p = 0.01, Cramer's V = 0.093). PJI prevalence was 20.7% for the MSIS, 25.4% for the ICM, 28.1% for the IDSA, and 32.0% for the EBJIS definition. For synovial fluid white blood cell count, the best ROC-AUC for predicting PJI was 0.953 in combination with the MSIS definition.

Conclusion

PJI definition significantly influences the rate of diagnosed PJIs at THA revision. Synovial fluid white blood cell count is a reliable means to rule out PJI. In cases with a borderline high synovial white blood cell count before THA revision as the only sign of chronic PJI, an extended diagnostic work-up should be considered.

Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

BACKGROUND

There are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), however, national or international guidelines for a standardised treatment regime are still lacking. The present paper evaluates the use of the predominant treatment protocols for PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ) in Germany based on an EndoCert questionnaire.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the treatment protocols for septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ. Questions targeted the various treatment options including prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and diagnostic sampling prior to re-implantation. All certified EPZ participated (n = 504) and the results from the current survey in 2020 were compared to data from a previous analysis in 2015.

RESULTS

The number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option increased (hip: + 6.3%; knee: + 6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4-8 week period as the preferred interval between prosthesis removal and re-implantation in two-stage revision in hip as well as knee revisions. Centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (> 200 revisions/year), opted even more often for the 4-8 week period (92.3%). In two-stage revision the use of metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement as an interim placeholder was significantly reduced in 2020 compared to 2015. There was also a clear preference for cemented anchoring in two-stage revision arthroplasty in the knee in 2020, whereas the majority of hip replacements was cementless. Additionally, in 2020 the number of samples for microbiological testing during the removal of the infected endoprosthesis increased and 72% of the centres took five or more samples. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure expanded from 2015 to 2020.

CONCLUSION

While there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

Implementation of a standardized clinical test kit for diagnostics of periprosthetic infections in the clinical routine

BACKGROUND

The number of primary arthroplasties is increasing and the proportion of revision arthroplasties is becoming increasingly more important. The need for standardized and guideline-based diagnostics for the safe detection of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is becoming apparent. In the past 10 years various organizations have published definitions and diagnostic guidelines. The implementation of an inhouse standard test kit could help to simplify the process and could improve the diagnostic quality.

METHOD

In 2016 a test kit was compiled in a monocentric prospective study, taking the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria 2014 and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria into account, which also fulfils the definitions of the ICM criteria 2018 and criteria of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society 2021. The test kit was implemented in the clinical setting of a special department for aseptic and septic revision arthroplasty. The usability and accuracy of the test kit were examined.

RESULTS

The test kit was implemented using blood samples (leukocyte count; C‑reactive protein, CRP), samples for examining the synovial fluid (white blood cell count, PMN cell differentiation, microbiological culture for incubation over 14 days, alpha-defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, leukocyte esterase test strips) together with information and request forms. Between April 2016 and February 2020 a total of 405 patients were investigated. Within 3 calendar years, the use of the test kit increased from 59% initially to 86%, and finally to 96% of cases in the third calendar year. The leukocyte esterase test strip was reliable in only 72%, due to undifferentiated readability or blood contamination. The costs increased by the only commercially available alpha-defensin ELISA test by approx. 52€ per puncture. The best individual test showed a sensitivity/specificity of 92.8%/95.2% with alpha-defensin. It was calculated which combinations showed a similar test quality and different combinations, such as CRP+ cell count+ microbiology showed a sensitivity/specificity both of around 90%. Metallosis is a challenge for preoperative PJI diagnostics.

DISCUSSION

In a prospective study it was shown, that the implementation of the standardized test kit lead to a guideline based PJI diagnostic in all cases and thus to a significantly increase of the diagnostic quality. There is currently no single test that reliably excludes or proves an infection. The alpha-defensin laboratory ELISA test showed the best test accuracy, whereby the consideration of test combinations is obligatory and at the same time safe.

[Implementation of a standardized clinical test kit for diagnostics of periprosthetic infections in the clinical routine. German version]

BACKGROUND

The number of primary arthroplasties is increasing and the proportion of revision arthroplasties is becoming increasingly more important. The need for standardized and guideline-based diagnostics for the safe detection of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is becoming apparent. In the past 10 years various organizations have published definitions and diagnostic guidelines. The implementation of an inhouse standard test kit could help to simplify the process and could improve the diagnostic quality.

METHOD

In 2016 a test kit was compiled in a monocentric prospective study, taking the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria 2014 and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria into account, which also fulfils the definitions of the ICM criteria 2018 and criteria of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society 2021. The test kit was implemented in the clinical setting of a special department for aseptic and septic revision arthroplasty. The usability and accuracy of the test kit were examined.

RESULTS

The test kit was implemented using blood samples (leukocyte count; C‑reactive protein, CRP), samples for examining the synovial fluid (white blood cell count, PMN cell differentiation, microbiological culture for incubation over 14 days, alpha-defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, leukocyte esterase test strips) together with information and request forms. Between April 2016 and February 2020 a total of 405 patients were investigated. Within 3 calendar years, the use of the test kit increased from 59% initially to 86%, and finally to 96% of cases in the third calendar year. The leukocyte esterase test strip was reliable in only 72%, due to undifferentiated readability or blood contamination. The costs increased by the only commercially available alpha-defensin ELISA test by approx. 52€ per puncture. The best individual test showed a sensitivity/specificity of 92.8%/95.2% with alpha-defensin. It was calculated which combinations showed a similar test quality and different combinations, such as CRP+ cell count+ microbiology showed a sensitivity/specificity both of around 90%. Metallosis is a challenge for preoperative PJI diagnostics.

DISCUSSION

In a prospective study it was shown, that the implementation of the standardized test kit lead to a guideline based PJI diagnostic in all cases and thus to a significantly increase of the diagnostic quality. There is currently no single test that reliably excludes or proves an infection. The alpha-defensin laboratory ELISA test showed the best test accuracy, whereby the consideration of test combinations is obligatory and at the same time safe.

[Manual addition of antibiotics to industrial bone cement mixes : Investigations of the dry mix in the cement cartridge during manual admixture to polymer-active substance mixtures]

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection (PPI) is a rare but serious complication. An elementary component of the therapy of PPI is the use of bone cement with the addition of antibiotics. For targeted therapy, manual mixing of antibiotics with industrially produced bone cement mixtures is often necessary. Possible problems resulting from manual mixing have not been described sufficiently so far.

OBJECTIVES

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to describe the influence of the additional homogenisation by dry mixing of a polymer-active substance mixture on the quality of manually added cement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the laboratory-based study, four cement samples were prepared using different methods for manual addition and homogenisation of antibiotics (vancomycin). The reference control was Copal® G + V (Heraeus Medical GmbH, Wehrheim, Germany), to which the vancomycin (V) had already been industrially added. The samples were then examined for mechanical, microbiological and microscopic parameters.

RESULTS

In the mechanical and microbiological results, no statistically significant differences were found between the manually added mixtures and the reference. After dry mixing of the polymer powder, the inner surface of the mixing cartridges used showed signs of scratching in the microscopic examination and showed indications of abrasion during mixing.

CONCLUSION

The manual addition of antibiotics to industrially produced bone cement should be reserved for selected indications if the bone cement mixtures produced by industry are not sufficient.

Diagnosis and management of the infected total knee replacement: a practical surgical guide

PURPOSE

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a significant burden in health care. Diagnosis and proper management are challenging. A standardised procedure for the diagnostic workup and surgical management provides clear benefits in outcome.

METHODS

Several diagnostic protocols and definitions for PJI were established in recent years. Proper PJI diagnosis remains critical for success and for choosing the optimal treatment option. A distinct workup of diagnostic steps, the evaluation of the results in a multidisciplinary setup and the meticulous surgical management of the infection are the key factors of successful treatment.

RESULTS

The management of PJI after TKA consists of early revision with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in early cases or staged revision in late infections beyond 30 days postoperative or after onset of acute symptoms. The revision is performed as a two-stage procedure with the use of a fixed or mobile antibiotic spacer, or in selected cases as a single-stage operation with the use of local and systemic antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper reflects the opinion of two revision surgeons who follow the same protocol for diagnosis and treatment of PJI after TKA, highlighting the key steps in diagnosis and management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Expert's opinion.

Diagnostic algorithm in septic total knee arthroplasty failure - What is evidence-based?

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is among the most common differential diagnoses of total knee arthroplasty failure. It is a challenging complication, not least because of the difficulty of establishing the correct diagnosis. The fact that no single diagnostic parameter or test has been identified that can accurately rule in or out PJI has led to an evolution of similar but competing definitions of PJI on the grounds of an array of criteria. This development has had very positive effects on the scientific evaluation of various methods of PJI diagnostics and treatment because of an increased comparability. However, it can be challenging to stay abreast of the evidence these definitions are based on. Also, the definitions alone do not necessarily entail an algorithm to aid in evaluating the right criteria in a sound order to be able to use the definitions as a sensible tool. The aim of this overview is to state the most recent evidence on the diagnostic parameters included in the most established PJI definitions and to exhibit and compare the few algorithmic approaches published. Clinical symptoms of PJI are very rarely reported on in the literature, hence the evidence on their diagnostic value is poor. The only symptom that is part of the established PJI definitions is the presence of a fistula. Concerning serological markers, CRP and ESR are still the common denominator in the literature, most recently accompanied by D-Dimer as a potentially suitable marker that has been included in the most recent update of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria. Imaging plays a minor role in the diagnostic cascade because of inconsistent evidence, and no role whatsoever in the established definitions. The most important preoperative diagnostic measure is arthrocentesis and cultural and cytological analysis of the synovial fluid. The much acclaimed α-Defensin test has so far not been included in the established criteria due to inconsistent reports on its diagnostic accuracy, it is, however, in wide use and considered an optional diagnostic tool for inconclusive cases. The most diagnostic accuracy lies in the cultural and histological analysis of periprosthetic tissue biopsies, whether they are gathered in a small procedure or during arthroplasty revision. Published algorithmic approaches to PJI diagnosis are much rarer than the well-established definitions by various associations. With their PJI definition, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) published a consensus based flowchart for PJI diagnosis. Another algorithm was proposed as part of the endeavor of the MSIS and the first consensus meeting, also based on a consensus among experts. There have been two more recent publications of flowcharts based on the current evidence, one introduced at our institution in 2013, one established in 2020 by the German Society for Arthroplasty (AE).

Comparing the Diagnostic Value of Serum D-Dimer to CRP and IL-6 in the Diagnosis of Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection

Introduction: D-dimer is a diagnostic criterion for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the serum D-dimer values in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods: We included 119 patients (50 women, 69 men; 71 knees, 48 hips) undergoing revision arthroplasty with preoperative assessment of CRP, IL-6, and serum D-dimer. Cases were classified as infected or aseptic based on the MSIS criteria of 2018. Receiver operating curves and Youden’s index were used to define an ideal cut-off value and sensitivity and specificity for the individual parameters, and respective combinations were calculated using cross-tables. Results: The median D-dimer level (2320 vs. 1105 ng/mL; p < 0.001), the median CRP level (4.0 vs. 0.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001), and the median IL-6 level (21.0 vs. 5.0 pg/mL; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group of PJI compared to the group with aseptic failure. The calculated optimal cut-off values were 2750 ng/mL (AUC 0.767) for D-dimer, 1.2 mg/dL (AUC 0.914) for CRP, and 10.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.849) for IL-6. D-dimer showed a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of 94%, whereas the CRP and IL-6 had sensitivities of 88% and 76%, and specificities of 87% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison with CRP and IL-6, serum D-dimer showed low sensitivity and specificity in our cohort. While CRP and IL-6 combination had the highest sensitivity, a combination of Il-6 and D-dimer or CRP and IL-6 had the highest specificity.