Method of intraoperative tissue sampling for culture has an effect on contamination risk

Optimal microbiological sampling for the diagnosis of osteoarticular infection

Infection is a dire complication afflicting every field of orthopaedics and traumatology. If specific clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters are present, infection is often assumed even in the absence of microbiological confirmation. However, apart from confirming infection, knowing the exact infecting pathogen(s) and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns is paramount to help guide treatment. Every effort should therefore be undertaken with that goal in mind.Not all microbiological findings carry the same relevance, and knowing exactly how and where a sample was collected is key. Several different sampling techniques are available, and one must be aware of both advantages and limitations. Microbiological sampling alternatives in some of the most common clinical scenarios such as native and prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis and fracture-related infections, spinal and diabetic foot infections will be discussed.Orthopaedic surgeons should also be aware of basic laboratory sample processing techniques as they have a direct impact on the way specimens should be dealt with and transported to the laboratory. Only by knowing these basic principles will surgeons be able to participate in the multidisciplinary discussion and decision making around how to interpret microbiological findings in each specific patient. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:390-398. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210011.

Getting it right first time: The importance of a structured tissue sampling protocol for diagnosing fracture-related infections

INTRODUCTION

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is an important complication following surgical fracture management. Key to successful treatment is an accurate diagnosis. To this end, microbiological identification remains the gold standard. Although a structured approach towards sampling specimens for microbiology seems logical, there is no consensus on a culture protocol for FRI. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a structured microbiology sampling protocol for fracture-related infections compared to ad-hoc culture sampling.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-/post-implementation cohort study that compared the effects of implementation of a structured FRI sampling protocol. The protocol included strict criteria for sampling and interpretation of tissue cultures for microbiology. All intraoperative samples from suspected or confirmed FRI were compared for culture results. Adherence to the protocol was described for the post-implementation cohort.

RESULTS

In total 101 patients were included, 49 pre-implementation and 52 post-implementation. From these patients 175 intraoperative culture sets were obtained, 96 and 79 pre- and post-implementation respectively. Cultures from the pre-implementation cohort showed significantly more antibiotic use during culture sampling (P =  0.002). The post-implementation cohort showed a tendency more positive culture sets (69% vs. 63%), with a significant difference in open wounds (86% vs. 67%, P =  0.034). In all post-implementation culture sets causative pathogens were cultured more than once per set, in contrast to pre-implementation. Despite stricter tissue sampling and culture interpretation criteria, the number of polymicrobial infections was similar in both cohorts, approximately 29% of all culture sets and 44% of all positive culture sets. Significantly more polymicrobial cultures were found in early infections in the post-implementation cohort (P =  0.048). This indicates a better yield in the new protocol.

CONCLUSION

A standardised protocol for intraoperative sampling for bacterial identification in FRI is superior than an ad-hoc approach. It has a positive effect on both surgeon and microbiologist by increasing awareness about the problem at hand. This resulted in more microbiologically confirmed infections and more certainty when identifying causative pathogens.

The World Association against Infection in Orthopaedics and Trauma (WAIOT) procedures for Microbiological Sampling and Processing for Periprosthetic Joint Infections (PJIs) and other Implant-Related Infections

While implant-related infections continue to play a relevant role in failure of implantable biomaterials in orthopaedic and trauma there is a lack of standardised microbiological procedures to identify the pathogen(s). The microbiological diagnosis of implant-related infections is challenging due to the following factors: the presence of bacterial biofilm(s), often associated with slow-growing microorganisms, low bacterial loads, previous antibiotic treatments and, possible intra-operative contamination. Therefore, diagnosis requires a specific set of procedures. Based on the Guidelines of the Italian Association of the Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the World Association against Infection in Orthopaedics and Trauma has drafted the present document. This document includes guidance on the basic principles for sampling and processing for implant-related infections based on the most relevant literature. These procedures outline the main microbiological approaches, including sampling and processing methodologies for diagnostic assessment and confirmation of implant-related infections. Biofilm dislodgement techniques, incubation time and the role of molecular approaches are addressed in specific sections. The aim of this paper is to ensure a standardised approach to the main microbiological methods for implant-related infections, as well as to promote multidisciplinary collaboration between clinicians and microbiologists.

Longer Operative Time Results in a Higher Rate of Subsequent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Undergoing Primary Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Whether prolonged operative time is an independent risk factor for subsequent surgical site infection (SSI) and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains a clinically significant and underexplored issue. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between operative time and the risk of subsequent SSI and PJI in patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 17,342 primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty performed at a single institution between 2005 and 2016, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. A multivariate logistic regression model was conducted to identify the association between operative time and the development of SSI within 90 days and PJI within 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, the incidence of 90-day SSI and 1-year PJI was 1.2% and 0.8%, respectively. Patients with an operative time of >90 minutes had a significantly higher incidence of SSI and PJI (2.1% and 1.4%, respectively) compared to cases lasting between 60 and 90 minutes (1.1% and 0.7%), and those lasting ≤60 minutes (0.9% and 0.7%, P < .01). In the multivariate model, the risk for infection increased by an odds ratio of 1.346 (95% confidential interval 1.114-1.627) for 90-day SSI and 1.253 (95% confidential interval 1.060-1.481) for 1-year PJI for each 20-minute increase in operative time.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing primary TJA, each 20-minute increase in operative time was associated with nearly a 25% increased risk of subsequent PJI. We advocate that surgeons pay close attention to this underappreciated risk factor while maintaining safe operative practices, which minimize unnecessary steps and wasted time in the operating room.