What is a “periprosthetic shoulder infection”? A systematic review of two decades of publications

High infection control rate after systematic one-stage procedure for shoulder arthroplasty chronic infection

PURPOSE

The two stage revision procedure is the gold standard surgical technique in chronic shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Series of one stage revision have been published with similar outcomes but with preoperative selection of patients. The aim of this work was to report the outcomes (infection eradication, functional, and radiographic) after systematic one stage revision, without preoperative selection of patients, in chronic shoulder PJI.

METHODS

This was a retrospective monocentric study including 40 patients (14 women and 26 men) with a diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after a shoulder arthroplasty. A one stage shoulder prosthesis revision was performed in all patients, for a PJI evolving for more than three weeks, without preoperative patient selection. The primary endpoint was the absence of signs of persistent infection at a minimum follow-up of two years. Secondary endpoints were clinical and radiological outcomes.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, 36/40 patients had no recurrence of infection after the one stage revision, i.e., 90% of our series. In 45% (18/40) of the cases, the microbial organism was not known at the time of the one stage revision. Cutibacterium acnes was the most frequent pathogen, found in 67.5% (27/40) of the patients. The infection was polymicrobial in 40% (16/40) of the cases. At last follow-up, mean absolute Constant score was 48.4% (16-93) and weighted score was 65.5% (22-100), and satisfaction was evaluated by the patients as excellent or good in 75% (30/40). About 20% (8/40) of the patients had a postoperative complication.

CONCLUSION

A one stage revision procedure, combined with appropriate antibiotic therapy, made it possible to eradicate the PJI in 90% of the shoulders in our series with satisfactory functional outcomes.

The role of serum D-Dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection

INTRODUCTION

D-Dimer was recently identified as an additional biomarker in the diagnosis of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Currently, there is only one study in literature dealing with the role of D-Dimer in the diagnosis of shoulder PJI. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to validate the sensitivity and specificity of D-Dimer in detecting shoulder PJI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients, who underwent septic or aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty in our institution between November 2018 und March 2021, were analyzed. Our cohort consisted of 30 patients, of that 14 (47%) had a shoulder PJI according the last proposed criteria of the International Consensus Meeting. The diagnostic validity of serum D-Dimer regarding the detection of PJI was analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean D-Dimer level was significantly higher for the patients with shoulder PJI compared to patients with aseptic failure (1.44 ± 1 mg/l vs. 0.76 ± 0.6 mg/l, p = 0.025). Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly isolated pathogens, in 9/14 patients (64%), followed by Cutibacterium acnes in 5/14 patients (36%). According to the ROC analysis, a serum D-Dimer threshold of 0.75 mg/l had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 56% for detection of a shoulder PJI. The area under curve was 0.74. A serum C-reactive protein (CRP) cutoff of 10 mg/l showed a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 88%. When both serum D-Dimer and CRP above the thresholds of 0.75 mg/l and 10 mg/l, respectively, were used to identify a PJI the sensitivity and specificity were 57% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum D-Dimer showed a good sensitivity but a poor specificity for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI. Combination D-Dimer and CRP led to improvement of the specificity, however, at the cost of sensitivity. Thus, combination of both methods may be used as a confirmatory test in the diagnosis of shoulder PJI but not to rule out infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic level II.

Prosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A review of the recent literature

Introduction

Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment for shoulder arthritis. Prosthetic joint infection of the shoulder (PJIS) is a debilitating complication to the patient and the healthcare system. Incidence of infection is 0.98-5% for primary arthroplasty. The mean hospital cost for two-stage revision was approximately $35,824. The aim of this paper is to review the recent literature and collate the latest evidence to aid diagnosis and treatment of this serious complication.

Methods

A literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. A search strategy was adopted using the keywords: 'infection' AND 'shoulder arthroplasty' OR 'total shoulder arthroplasty'OR 'TSA' OR 'reverse shoulder arthroplasty' OR 'RSA' OR 'rTSA'. This initial search resulted in 349 articles. A PRISMA flowchart process was followed. Duplicates were removed, screening was performed and the resulting full texts were analysed and further excluded, leaving 46 articles suitable for inclusion. A PICO search strategy was also used.

Results and interpretation

Risk factors for PJIS include procedure type, trauma indications and patient factors.The organism commonly isolated is Cutebacterium acnes, which makes diagnosis challenging due to its indolent nature. Investigations include biochemical tests, synovial aspirate, tissue cultures and radiological examinations.Treatment depends on the depth of the infection and the patient requirements. Medical treatment with antibiotics to local debridement, cement spacer and revision arthroplasty have all been described in the literature. A multidisciplinary decision is made on the microbiological evidence and patient factors.

Conclusion

PJIS is a rare but potentially devastating complication of shoulder arthroplasty and diagnosis is often challenging. There has been much research performed recently, providing more evidence on how to optimise management.

Periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A 10-year retrospective analysis outlining the heterogeneity among these patients

Background

Diagnosis and treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult problem. The purpose of this study was to utilize the 2018 International Consensus Meeting definition of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection to categorize revision shoulder arthroplasty cases and determine variations in clinical presentation by presumed infection classification.

Methods

Retrospective review of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Likelihood of periprosthetic joint infection was determined based on International Consensus Meeting scoring. All patients classified as definitive or probable periprosthetic joint infection were classified as periprosthetic joint infection. All patients classified as possible or unlikely periprosthetic joint infection were classified as aseptic. The periprosthetic joint infection cohort was subsequently divided into culture-negative, non-virulent microorganism, and virulent microorganism cohorts based on culture results.

Results

Four hundred and sixty cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed. Eighty (17.4%) patients were diagnosed as definite or probable periprosthetic joint infection, of which 29 (36.3%), 39 (48.8%), and 12 (15.0%) were classified as virulent, non-virulent, or culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, respectively. There were significant differences among periprosthetic joint infection subgroups with regard to preoperative C-reactive protein (p = 0.020), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.051), sinus tract presence (p = 0.008), and intraoperative purulence (p < 0.001). The total International Consensus Meeting criteria scores were also significantly different between the periprosthetic joint infection cohorts (p < 0.001).

Discussion

While the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection has improved with the advent of International Consensus Meeting criteria, there remain distinct differences between periprosthetic joint infection classifications that warrant further investigation to determine the accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment.

Clinical Outcomes of Two-Stage Implantation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Postinfectious End-Stage Glenohumeral Arthritis in Native Shoulders: A Single-Center Cohort Study with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

Septic arthritis of the shoulder is a rare but devastating condition that may lead to joint destruction. There are few studies and limited outcome data on shoulder arthroplasty for infected native shoulders with end-stage glenohumeral arthritis (GHA). Hence, this study aimed to demonstrate the clinical outcomes of two-stage implantation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using an antibiotic spacer in the first stage for this challenging condition.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on two-stage implantation in RSA in infected shoulders. Patients were diagnosed with end-stage GHA due to primary shoulder sepsis or infection following non-arthroplasty shoulder surgery. Laboratory data, range of motion (ROM), and functional scores including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score were assessed prior to spacer placement and at the latest follow-up. Furthermore, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded.

Results

In this study, 10 patients with a mean age of 54.8 ± 15.8 years (range, 30-77 years) were included. The mean follow-up period was 37.3 ± 9.1 months (range, 25-56 months). All postoperative ROM measurements and functional scores were improved significantly. Although no reinfection was observed, a total of 5 complications including 2 hematomas, 1 intraoperative humeral fracture, 1 humeral stem loosening, and 1 anterior deltoid dysfunction were observed in 4 patients after a follow-up period of at least 2 years after RSA.

Conclusions

Two-stage implantation in RSA is an effective method for improving the function and controlling the infection in postinfectious end-stage GHA in native shoulders.

Management of periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) remains a devastating complication after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Currently, scientific data related to the management of PSI are limited, and the optimal strategy and related clinical outcomes remain unclear. Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the management of periprosthetic joint infection are mainly based on data from patients after hip and knee arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether these guidelines are also valid for patients with PSI after RSA. In addition, the functional outcome according to the surgical intervention was assessed.

METHODS

An RSA database was retrospectively reviewed to identify infections after primary and revision RSAs, diagnosed between 2004 and 2018. Data collected included age, sex, indication for RSA, causative pathogen, surgical and antimicrobial treatment, functional outcome, and recurrence.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with a PSI were identified. Surgical treatment was subdivided into débridement and implant retention (DAIR) (n = 6, 17%); 1-stage revision (n = 1, 3%); 2-stage revision (n = 16, 44%); multiple-stage revision (>2 stages) (n = 7, 19%); definitive spacer implantation (n = 2, 6%); and resection arthroplasty (n = 4, 11%). The most common causative pathogens were Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 11, 31%) and Cutibacterium acnes (n = 9, 25%). Recurrence was diagnosed in 4 patients (11%), all of whom were initially treated with a DAIR approach. The median follow-up period was 36 months (range, 24-132 months).

CONCLUSION

PSI is typically caused by low-virulence pathogens, which often are diagnosed with a delay, resulting in chronic infection at the time of surgery. Our results indicate that treatment of patients with chronic PSI with DAIR has a high recurrence rate. In addition, implant exchange (ie, 1- and 2-stage exchange) does not compromise the functional result as compared with implant retention. Thus, patients with chronic PSI should be treated with implant exchange. Future research should further clarify which surgical strategy (ie, 1-stage vs. 2-stage exchange) has a better outcome overall.

Is D-dimer a Reliable Serum Marker for Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection continues to be difficult to make with confidence. Serum D-dimer has proven to be effective as a screening tool for periprosthetic joint infection in other major joints; however, it has yet to be evaluated for use in periprosthetic shoulder infection.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is D-dimer elevated in patients with probable or definite periprosthetic shoulder infections? (2) What is the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for periprosthetic shoulder infections? (3) What are the diagnostic accuracies of serum tests (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], and D-dimer), singly and in combination?

METHODS

Between March 2016 and March 2020, 94 patients undergoing revision total shoulder arthroplasty (anatomic or reverse) at a single institution had preoperative serum testing with CRP, ESR, and D-dimer. These 94 patients were a subset of 189 revision shoulder arthroplasties performed at this institution during the study period who met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Included patients had a mean ± SD age of 69 ± 8 years, and 56% (53 of 94) were men. Patient records were reviewed to classify patients as definitely having infection, probably having infection, possibly having infection, or unlikely to have an infection, according to the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Statistical analyses, including a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, were performed to quantify the diagnostic value of D-dimer for periprosthetic shoulder infection. Based on the ICM definition, 4% (4 of 94), 15% (14 of 94), 14% (13 of 94), and 67% (63 of 94) of patients had definite, probable, possible, or unlikely periprosthetic shoulder infections.

RESULTS

D-dimer was elevated in patients with definite or probable infections (median [range] 661 ng/mL [150 to 8205]) compared with those with possible infections or those who were unlikely to have an infection (263 ng/mL [150 to 3060]; median difference 143 ng/mL [95% CI 40 to 503]; p = 0.01). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, D-dimer had an area under the curve of 0.71 (0.50-0.92), demonstrating weak diagnostic value. A D-dimer level of 598 ng/mL provided a sensitivity and specificity of 61% (95% CI 36% to 82%) and 74% (95% CI 62% to 83%), respectively, for diagnosing a definite or probable infection according to the ICM definitions. The specificity of detecting periprosthetic joint infection (88% [95% CI 79% to 94%]) was high when three positive serum markers (ESR, CRP, and D-dimer) were required, at the expense of sensitivity (28% [95% CI 10% to 53%]).

CONCLUSION

In periprosthetic shoulder infection, D-dimer is elevated. However, similar to other serum tests, it has limited diagnostic utility in identifying patients with periprosthetic shoulder infection. Further work is needed to understand the process by which D-dimer is associated with active infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Role of pre-revision tissue biopsy in evaluation of painful shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pre-revision tissue biopsy (PTB) for culture has been used as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation for periprosthetic joint infection among patients with a painful shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of PTB culture results compared with results of "gold-standard" tissue biopsy for culture taken at the time of subsequent revision surgery (TBR), and (2) report the current indications and protocols described for use of PTB. The hypothesis was that PTB culture results would correlate highly with results of TBR and that protocols for PTB would vary by institution.

METHODS

By use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature were performed using the Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane databases from inception through March 2020. Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) validated grading criteria were used to summarize the quality and bias of included studies. Studies were included if an arthroscopic or open tissue biopsy was performed in patients who had previously undergone anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as a separate procedure prior to revision of components, if applicable. Meta-analysis to identify the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of PTB was performed. Analysis was performed by first defining 1 positive PTB culture result as infection and then defining 2 positive culture results as infection.

RESULTS

A total of 1751 titles were screened, and 66 full-text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Four total studies encompassing 72 cases met the inclusion criteria. All studies were small (N = 13 to N = 23), retrospective series, with all but 12 biopsies performed arthroscopically. Sixty-five patients (90.2%) underwent subsequent revision surgery and TBR. Of these patients, 23 (35.4%) had ≥1 positive culture result with PTB and TBR. By this definition, the sensitivity of PTB was 92.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-98.6%); specificity, 70.0% (95% CI, 53.3%-82.9%); PPV, 65.7% (95% CI, 47.7%-80.3%); and NPV, 93.3% (95% CI, 76.5%-98.8%). For 2 positive PTB results, the sensitivity of PTB was 100% (95% CI, 51.7%-100%); specificity, 50.0% (95% CI, 31.4%-68.6%); PPV, 33.3% (95% CI, 14.4%-58.8%); and NPV, 100% (95% CI, 69.9%-100%). No complications of PTB were reported. The mean Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) grade was 11.4 (range, 8.5-14).

CONCLUSION

PTB is a sensitive diagnostic modality with a high NPV that may aid in the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection in patients with a painful shoulder arthroplasty. Given the disparate biopsy protocols, greater standardization of clinical best practices and broader prospective studies are necessary to define the future role of PTB in dictating treatment.

Prosthetic Shoulder Joint Infection by Cutibacterium acnes: Does Rifampin Improve Prognosis? A Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

This retrospective, multicenter observational study aimed to describe the outcomes of surgical and medical treatment of C. acnes-related prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the potential benefit of rifampin-based therapies. Patients with C. acnes-related PJI who were diagnosed and treated between January 2003 and December 2016 were included. We analyzed 44 patients with C. acnes-related PJI (median age, 67.5 years (IQR, 57.3-75.8)); 75% were men. The majority (61.4%) had late chronic infection according to the Tsukayama classification. All patients received surgical treatment, and most antibiotic regimens (43.2%) included β-lactam. Thirty-four patients (87.17%) were cured; five showed relapse. The final outcome (cure vs. relapse) showed a nonsignificant trend toward higher failure frequency among patients with previous prosthesis (OR: 6.89; 95% CI: 0.80-58.90) or prior surgery and infection (OR: 10.67; 95% IC: 1.08-105.28) in the same joint. Patients treated with clindamycin alone had a higher recurrence rate (40.0% vs. 8.8%). Rifampin treatment did not decrease recurrence in patients treated with β-lactams. Prior prosthesis, surgery, or infection in the same joint might be related to recurrence, and rifampin-based combinations do not seem to improve prognosis. Debridement and implant retention appear a safe option for surgical treatment of early PJI.

Preoperative Skin Cultures Predict Periprosthetic Infections in Revised Shoulder Arthroplasties: A Preliminary Report

Current approaches do not provide a practical method for the accurate prediction of a Cutibacterium periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in failed arthroplasties. Thus, surgeons revising failed arthroplasties must decide whether to exchange the implants and to institute antibiotic treatment without knowing the results of cultures of deep specimens obtained at the revision procedure. This study tests the hypothesis that the results of preoperative culture specimens of the skin surface obtained in the clinic can predict the presence of culture-positive Cutibacterium PJIs.

METHODS

Revision shoulder arthroplasties performed between October 3, 2017, and February 4, 2020, that had both preoperative clinic culture specimens and surgical culture specimens were included in this analysis. Culture results were assigned a value from 0 to 4. The percentage of the total skin bacterial load contributed by Cutibacterium (Cutibacterium percentage) was determined. To reduce concern about contamination, a robust criterion for culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI was applied: ≥2 surgical specimens with a Cutibacterium value of ≥1. The predictive values for a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI were determined for a clinic skin culture Cutibacterium value of >1 and a clinic skin percentage of Cutibacterium of ≥75%.

RESULTS

Eighteen cases met the inclusion criteria; of these, 7 (6 male patients) met our criterion for a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI. For all patients, a preoperative clinic skin Cutibacterium value of >1 predicted the presence of a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI with an accuracy of 89%, and a clinic skin Cutibacterium percentage of ≥75% predicted the presence of a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI with an accuracy of 94%. For male patients, a preoperative clinic skin Cutibacterium value of >1 predicted the presence of a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI with an accuracy of 91%, and a clinic skin Cutibacterium percentage of ≥75% predicted the presence of a culture-positive Cutibacterium PJI with an accuracy of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple culture specimen of the unprepared skin surface obtained in a clinic prior to revision shoulder arthroplasty may provide valuable assistance to surgeons planning a revision arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The role of implant sonication in the diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of implant sonication fluid cultures in the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared with tissue culture.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study analyzing all patients who underwent a revision surgery for any kind of suspected septic or aseptic event due to failed shoulder arthroplasty at our institution between July 2014 and December 2018. The diagnostic validity of implant sonication was analyzed on the basis of the last proposed definition criteria of the International Consensus Meeting and compared with standard tissue cultures.

RESULTS

Of the 72 patients, a total of 28 (38.9%) were classified as infected. Of the 28 infected patients, 20 (71.4%) had an identified organism by tissue cultures, and Cutibacterium acnes was the most commonly isolated pathogen. The sensitivities of sonicate fluid (≥50 CFU/mL) and periprosthetic tissue culture for the diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection were 36% and 61% (P = .016), and the specificities were 97.7% and 100% (P > .99), respectively. If no cutoff value was used in sonication culture, the sensitivity increased to 75% whereas the specificity dropped to 82%. Although there was no significant difference in sensitivity between tissue culture and the no-cutoff sonication fluid culture (61% vs. 75%, P = .125), the specificity of tissue culture was significantly higher (100% vs. 82%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Tissue culture showed a higher sensitivity and specificity than implant sonication in the diagnosis of shoulder PJI and should remain the gold standard for microbiological diagnosis of shoulder PJI.

Factors predictive of Cutibacterium periprosthetic shoulder infections: a retrospective study of 342 prosthetic revisions

BACKGROUND

Cutibacterium are the most common cause of periprosthetic shoulder infections, as defined by ≥2 deep cultures. Established Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections cannot be resolved without prosthesis removal. However, the decision for implant removal must be made from an assessment of infection risk before the results of intraoperative cultures are finalized. We hypothesized that the risk for a Cutibacterium infection is associated with characteristics that are available at the time of revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a retrospective review of 342 patients having prosthetic revisions between 2006 and 2018 for whom definitive deep culture results were available, we used univariate and multivariate analyses to compare the preoperative and intraoperative characteristics of 101 revisions with Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections to the characteristics of 241 concurrent revisions not meeting the definition of infection.

RESULTS

Patients with definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections were younger (59 ± 10 vs. 64 ± 12, P < .001), were more likely to be male (91% vs. 44%, P < .001), were more likely to have had their index procedure performed for primary osteoarthritis (54% vs. 39%, P = .007), were more likely to be taking testosterone supplements (8% vs. 2%, P = .02), had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7, P < .001), and had lower body mass indices (29 ± 5 vs. 31 ± 7, P = .005). Patients with definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections also had significantly higher preoperative loads of Cutibacterium on their unprepared skin surface (1.7 ± 0.9 vs. 0.4 ± 0.8, P < .001) and were more likely to have the surgical finding of synovitis (41% vs. 16%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of definite Cutibacterium periprosthetic infections is associated with observations that can be made before or at the time of revision arthroplasty.

Perioperative Clindamycin Use in Penicillin Allergic Patients Is Associated With a Higher Risk of Infection After Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

This study determines whether infection rates differ between prophylactic antibiotic use for patients with or without penicillin allergy before shoulder arthroplasty surgery.

METHODS

Seven thousand one hundred forty primary shoulder arthroplasties operated between 2005 and 2016 were identified. We compared deep surgical site infection risk of patients who received perioperative vancomycin alone (6.2%, N = 444) or clindamycin alone (7.1%, N = 508) for penicillin allergy versus patients who received cefazolin alone without penicillin allergy (86.7%, N = 6,188).

RESULTS

Seventy deep infections (1.2% 5-year cumulative incidence) were observed. The most common organism was Cutibacterium acnes (39.4%, N = 27). Compared with patients treated with cefazolin, infection risk was not different for those treated with vancomycin (hazard ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 3.30, P = 0.8), but a higher risk of infection was identified for those treated with clindamycin alone (hazard ratio = 3.45, 95% confidence interval 1.84 to 6.47, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A higher risk of postoperative infection is found after prophylactic use of intravenous clindamycin antibiotic after shoulder arthroplasty. Vancomycin is preferred over clindamycin for patients with penicillin allergy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Periprosthetic Infections of the Shoulder: Diagnosis and Management

The use of shoulder arthroplasty is continuing to expand. Periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder is a devastating complication occurring in approximately 1% of cases. The most common organisms responsible for the infection are Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes) (∼39%) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (∼29%). Evaluation of patients includes history and physical examination, serologic testing, imaging, possible joint aspiration, and tissue culture. Diagnosing infections caused by lower virulence organisms (eg, C acnes) poses a challenge to the surgeon because traditional diagnostic tests (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and joint aspiration) have a low sensitivity due to the lack of an inflammatory response. Periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder due to Staphylococcus aureus and other highly virulent organisms are often easy to diagnose and are usually treated with two-stage revisions. However, for infections with C acnes and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, single- and two-stage revision surgeries have shown similar ability to clear the infection. Unexpected positive cultures for C acnes during revision surgery are not uncommon; the proper management is still under investigation and remains a challenge.

Diagnostic Arthroscopy for Detection of Periprosthetic Infection in Painful Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To analyze the utility of arthroscopic biopsies for detection of periprosthetic infection in painful shoulder arthroplasty without objective signs of infection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a diagnostic arthroscopy for painful shoulder arthroplasty from June 2012 through July 2018 was performed. Patients with a subsequent revision shoulder arthroplasty after diagnostic arthroscopy were included. Arthroscopic tissue culture results were compared with the culture results of intraoperative tissue samples obtained at the time of open revision surgery. A minimum of 3 tissue samples from synovia and bone-prosthesis interface with signs of synovitis or abnormal appearance was routinely collected. Cases with 2 or more positive cultures for the same microorganism obtained at open revision surgery were considered as true presence of infection. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics committee.

RESULTS

Twenty-three cases in 22 patients were included in this study. Five of these 23 cases were classified as true infection based on the samples obtained during open revision surgery, and 16 cases had a positive culture in diagnostic arthroscopy. Cutibacterium acnes was isolated in each case. Classifying any microbiologic growth in the arthroscopic biopsies as positive resulted in a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100%, specificity of 39%, and positive predictive value of 31.3% for the detection of a periprosthetic shoulder infection (PPSI). If at least 2 positive samples with the same microbiologic growth in the arthroscopic biopsies were considered as positive, sensitivity and negative predictive value dropped to 80% and 94.4%, respectively, but the specificity and positive predictive value increased to 94.4% and 80%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic arthroscopy is a useful diagnostic tool in patients with suspicion but no clear evidence of PPSI. Arthroscopically obtained tissue biopsies for culture offer a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PPSI if at least 2 cultures positive for the same microorganism are considered as infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: the definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection

Research studies with evidence impacting clinical practice have used disparate definitions of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection, likely leading to variable and inconsistent conclusions about its diagnosis and management. In an effort to establish uniform guidelines for clinical decision making and research reporting, a clear definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection was established at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: evaluation of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. More than 800 experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The shoulder workgroup reached consensus on 27 questions related to culture techniques, inflammatory markers, and diagnostic criteria used to evaluate patients for periprosthetic shoulder infection. This document contains the group's recommendations and rationale for each question related to evaluating periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: management of periprosthetic shoulder infection

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. A multidisciplinary team of international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology was assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The following consensus proceedings from the International Consensus Meeting involve 30 questions pertaining to the management of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions

Musculoskeletal infections (MSKI) remain the bane of orthopedic surgery, and result in grievous illness and inordinate costs that threaten healthcare systems. As prevention, diagnosis, and treatment has remained largely unchanged over the last 50 years, a 2nd International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018, https://icmphilly.com) was completed. Questions pertaining to all areas of MSKI were extensively researched to prepare recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by the delegates using the Delphi methodology. The questions, including the General Assembly (GA) results, have been published (GA questions). However, as critical outcomes include: (i) incidence and cost data that substantiate the problems, and (ii) establishment of research priorities; an ICM 2018 research workgroup (RW) was assembled to accomplish these tasks. Here, we present the result of the RW consensus on the current and projected incidence of infection, and the costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties, which range from 0.1% to 30%, and $17,000 to $150,000. The RW also identified the most important research questions. The Delphi methodology was utilized to initially derive four objective criteria to define a subset of the 164 GA questions that are high priority for future research. Thirty-eight questions (23% of all GA questions) achieved the requisite > 70% agreement vote, and are highlighted in this Consensus article within six thematic categories: acute versus chronic infection, host immunity, antibiotics, diagnosis, research caveats, and modifiable factors. Finally, the RW emphasizes that without appropriate funding to address these high priority research questions, a 3rd ICM on MSKI to address similar issues at greater cost is inevitable.

Risk factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total elbow arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

For patients undergoing total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the present study aimed to investigate: (i) what risk factors are associated with periprosthetic elbow infection; (ii) what is the incidence of infection after TEA; and (iii) what is the acuity with which these infections present?

METHODS

The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was used to identify all patients who underwent TEA between 2003 and 2012 in New York State. Admissions for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) were identified using ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) diagnosis code 996.66. Multivariate analysis was used to determine risk factors that were independently prognostic for PJI.

RESULTS

Significant risk factors for PJI included hypothyroidism [odds ratio (OR) = 2.04; p = 0.045], tobacco use disorder (OR = 3.39; p = 0.003) and rheumatoid arthritis (OR = 3.31; p < 0.001). Among the 1452 patients in the study period who underwent TEA, 3.7% (n = 54) were admitted postoperatively for PJI. There were 30 (56%) early infections, 17 (31%) delayed infections and seven (13%) late infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative optimization of thyroid function, smoking cessation and management of rheumatoid disease may be considered in surgical candidates for TEA. The results of the present study add prognostic data to the literature that may be helpful with patient selection and risk profile analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III: prognostic study.

Preoperative skin cultures are predictive of Propionibacterium load in deep cultures obtained at revision shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Propionibacterium-specific cultures are commonly positive in revised shoulders without obvious signs of infection. To help identify patients at risk for these "stealth" presentations of positive Propionibacterium cultures, we assessed the value of a preoperative skin culture in predicting the results of deep cultures obtained at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty in patients without clinical evidence of infection.

METHODS

The study enrolled 60 patients undergoing revision for a prior shoulder arthroplasty without clinical evidence of infection. A preoperative culture of the skin surface was taken before skin preparation. At surgery, multiple (mean 5.9 ± standard deviation 1.6) deep tissue and explant cultures were harvested from the shoulder. Each culture was semiquantitatively reported as the specimen Propionibacterium value (SpPV). All SpPVs from the deep specimens from each patient were summed as the total shoulder Propionibacterium score (ShPS). The averaged ShPS was the total ShPS divided by the number of deep specimens harvested.

RESULTS

A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the preoperative skin SpPV was predictive of the Propionibacterium load in the revised shoulders as indicated by the total ShPS (P = .004) and averaged ShPS (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of patients, a preoperative culture of the unprepared skin was strongly predictive of the Propionibacterium load in revised shoulder arthroplasties without clinical evidence of infection. This result suggests that the results of skin cultures taken before revision surgery may help inform operative management with respect to the need for prosthesis exchange and extended postoperative antibiotic treatment.

Preoperative Skin-Surface Cultures Can Help to Predict the Presence of Propionibacterium in Shoulder Arthroplasty Wounds

Background:

Propionibacterium species are commonly cultured from specimens harvested at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty. These bacteria reside in normal sebaceous glands, out of reach of surgical skin preparation. The arthroplasty incision transects these structures, which allows Propionibacterium to inoculate the wound and to potentially lead to the formation of a biofilm on the inserted implant. To help identify patients who are at increased risk for wound inoculation, we investigated whether preoperative cultures of the specimens from the unprepared skin surface were predictive of the results of intraoperative cultures of dermal wound-edge specimens obtained immediately after incision of the surgically prepared skin.

Methods:

Sixty-six patients (mean age, 66.1 ± 9.4 years [range, 37 to 82 years]; 73% male) undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty had preoperative cultures of the unprepared skin surface and intraoperative cultures of the freshly incised dermis using special culture swabs. For the first 50 patients, a control swab was opened to air during the same time that the dermal specimen was obtained. The results for female and male patients were characterized as the Specimen Propionibacterium Value (SpPV). We then determined the degree to which the results of cultures of the skin surface specimens were predictive of the results of culture of the dermal specimens.

Results:

The skin-surface SpPV was ≥1 in 3 (17%) of the 18 female patients and 34 (71%) of the 48 male patients (p < 0.001). The dermal SpPV was ≥1 in 0 (0%) of the 18 female patients and 19 (40%) of the 48 male patients (p < 0.001). None of the control samples had an SpPV of ≥1. The predictive characteristics of a skin-surface SpPV of ≥1 for a dermal SpPV of ≥1 were as follows: sensitivity, 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.00); specificity, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.75); positive predictive value, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.68); and negative predictive value, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.00).

Conclusions:

A preoperative culture of the unprepared skin surface can help to predict whether the freshly incised dermal edge is likely to be positive for Propionibacterium. This test may help to identify patients who may merit more aggressive topical and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.

Clinical Relevance:

This study shows that surgeons have the opportunity to use preoperative skin cultures to determine the likelihood that the shoulder arthroplasty wound will be culture-positive for Propionibacterium.

Two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty using prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: minimum three-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and persistent infection rate of two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

We enrolled 12 patients who developed an infection after undergoing shoulder arthroplasty between January 2009 and January 2014. They underwent a two-stage revision with PROSTALAC implantation and shoulder re-implantation in the first- and second-stage surgery, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 40.88 months (range, 36-52 months). After the second-stage re-implantation, clinical scores, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, as well as C-reactive protein level were evaluated, and the presence of re-infection and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Infection was improved in all the cases after PROSTALAC insertion. The mean range of motion of forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation at the final follow-up after the second-stage re-implantation were 81.67°, 40.42°, and 16.67° (vertebral level), respectively. The mean visual analog scale score improved from 7.08 points before surgery to 2.33 points after surgery. The Modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 32.25 before surgery to 64.17 after surgery (P < 0.05). The Constant shoulder score also improved from 30.92 before surgery to 66.08 after surgery (P < 0.05). Infection had not recurred until the final follow-up. However, dislocation and separation of components were found in two patients who needed a structural allograft because of segmental bone defects.

CONCLUSION

Using PROSTALAC in two-stage revision arthroplasty is effective for infection control and produced good clinical outcomes after second-stage shoulder re-implantation. However, cases involving segmental bone defects require additional precautions in maintaining the appropriate tension and height to prevent complications.