[Periprosthetic infections in patients with rheumatism : A challenge]

Haemophilus influenzae infection of a prosthetic knee joint in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis : A case report

A 60-year-old female was admitted to internal medicine with a painful left knee after a fall and pneumonia. She had undergone a primary cemented left total knee arthroplasty in 2019 and a right cemented total knee arthroplasty in 2021. She had also a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with steroids and a Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor (upadacitinib). On admission intravenous antibiotic therapy was started for the treatment of pneumonia (piperacillin/tazobactam). Because of the persistent left knee pain, a knee puncture was carried out and confirmed a periprosthetic infection. A peripheral blood culture taken on admission day showed Haemophilus influenzae. She underwent a knee arthrotomy with debridement, irrigation, explantation of the knee prosthesis and spacer placement. Intraoperative cultures showed Haemophilus influenzae. The isolate was identified as a nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae strain by the reference laboratory. Haemophilus influenzae strains rarely cause invasive diseases. Rheumatoid arthritis with immunosuppressive therapy may have predisposed this patient to severe invasive disease. The clinical presentation of an infection may differ markedly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from that in patients without rheumatoid arthritis or immunosuppression.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis

Aims

To investigate the optimal thresholds and diagnostic efficacy of commonly used serological and synovial fluid detection indexes for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

The data from 348 patients who had RA or osteoarthritis (OA) and had previously undergone a total knee (TKA) and/or a total hip arthroplasty (THA) (including RA-PJI: 60 cases, RA-non-PJI: 80 cases; OA-PJI: 104 cases, OA-non-PJI: 104 cases) were retrospectively analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the optimal thresholds of the CRP, ESR, synovial fluid white blood cell count (WBC), and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) for diagnosing RA-PJI and OA-PJI. The diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by comparing the area under the curve (AUC) of each index and applying the results of the combined index diagnostic test.

Results

For PJI prediction, the results of serological and synovial fluid indexes were different between the RA-PJI and OA-PJI groups. The optimal cutoff value of CRP for diagnosing RA-PJI was 12.5 mg/l, ESR was 39 mm/hour, synovial fluid WBC was 3,654/μl, and PMN% was 65.9%; and those of OA-PJI were 8.2 mg/l, 31 mm/hour, 2,673/μl, and 62.0%, respectively. In the RA-PJI group, the specificity (94.4%), positive predictive value (97.1%), and AUC (0.916) of synovial fluid WBC were higher than those of the other indexes. The optimal cutoff values of synovial fluid WBC and PMN% for diagnosing RA-PJI after THA were significantly higher than those of TKA. The specificity and positive predictive value of the combined index were 100%.

Conclusion

Serum inflammatory and synovial fluid indexes can be used for diagnosing RA-PJI, for which synovial fluid WBC is the best detection index. Combining multiple detection indexes can provide a reference basis for the early and accurate diagnosis of RA-PJI.

[Infected endoprosthesis in patients with rheumatism]

Infections are a severe complication after an artificial joint replacement. The clinical symptoms are highly variable, particularly in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, which often makes the diagnosis difficult. In addition to clinical and laboratory findings, joint puncture is an essential component of the diagnostics and enables the identification of pathogens. Treatment of periprosthetic infections in patients with rheumatism should be an interdisciplinary cooperation between surgeons, rheumatologists and specialists for infectious diseases. The two essential pillars of treatment are surgical intervention and antibiotics. For acute joint infections an attempt at preservation of the artificial joint can be carried out, whereas for chronic infection situations only replacement of the prosthesis is possible as a curative treatment. In order to reduce the probability of occurrence of a joint infection, modifiable risk factors should be preoperatively identified and specifically treated.

[Not Available]

Zusammenfassung. Mit stetig steigender Häufigkeit endoprothetischer Eingriffe nimmt auch die Bedeutung der damit vergesellschafteten Revisionschirurgie zu. Die Gelenksprothesen-Infektion ist hierbei eine der schwerwiegendsten Komplikationen, die zur Erlangung eines bestmöglichen Behandlungsergebnisses eine differenzierte Diagnose- und Therapiestrategie erfordert. Anamnese, klinische Untersuchung, Laborkontrollen, Radiologie (konventionelle und spezialisierte), Gelenkspunktion sowie Mikrobiologie und Histologie liefern entscheidende Hinweise zur Diagnosestellung als unabdingbare Voraussetzung zur Erstellung und Einleitung des entsprechenden Therapiekonzeptes. Insbesondere die Abgrenzung zwischen aseptischen und septischen Prothesenlockerungen ist schwierig und erfordert ein differenziertes und interdisziplinäres Vorgehen. Die kurative Behandlungsstrategie ist abhängig von: Dauer der Symptome, Latenz seit Primärimplantation, Keimspektrum, Antibiogramm und Weichteilverhältnissen und umfasst prothesenerhaltende Strategien bei nicht gelockerter Prothese, reizlosen Weichteilen und Abwesenheit von Problemkeimen, bis hin zum kompletten ein- oder zweizeitigen Prothesenwechsel bei einer chronischen Infektion. In diesem Beitrag werden die aktuellen Management-Konzepte der Gelenksprothesen-Infektionen diskutiert.