1
|
Straub J, Staats K, Vertesich K, Kowalscheck L, Windhager R, Böhler C. Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after hip and knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2024; 106-B:372-379. [PMID: 38555938 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.1064.bjj-2023-0638.r2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/02/2024]
Abstract
Aims Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Straub
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Kevin Staats
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Klemens Vertesich
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lars Kowalscheck
- Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Reinhard Windhager
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christoph Böhler
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Khan IA, Boyd BO, Chen AF, Cortés-Penfield N, Myers TG, Brown TS, Suh GA, McGwin G, Ghanem ES, Fillingham YA. Utility of Diagnostic Tests Before Reimplantation in Patients Undergoing 2-Stage Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JBJS Rev 2023; 11:01874474-202303000-00007. [PMID: 36947634 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.22.00201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with treatment failure occurring in 12% to 28% after 2-stage revision. It is vital to identify diagnostic tools indicative of persistent infection or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. METHODS The Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies published before October 3, 2021, which evaluated the utility of serum/plasma biomarkers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], fibrinogen, D-dimer), synovial biomarkers (white blood cell [WBC] count, neutrophil percentage [PMN %], alpha-defensin [AD], leukocyte esterase [LE]), tissue frozen section, tissue culture, synovial fluid culture, or sonicated spacer fluid culture indicative of persistent infection before the second stage of 2-stage revision for PJI or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. RESULTS A total of 47 studies including 6,605 diagnostic tests among 3,781 2-stage revisions for PJI were analyzed. Among those cases, 723 (19.1%) experienced persistent infection or treatment failure. Synovial LE (sensitivity 0.25 [0.10-0.47], specificity 0.99 [0.93-1.00], positive likelihood ratio 14.0 [1.45-135.58]) and serum IL-6 (sensitivity 0.52 [0.33-0.70], specificity 0.92 [0.85-0.96], positive likelihood ratio 7.90 [0.86-72.61]) had the highest diagnostic accuracy. However, no biomarker was associated with a clinically useful negative likelihood ratio. In subgroup analysis, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP had limited utility for detecting persistent infection before reimplantation (positive likelihood ratios ranging 2.33-3.74; negative likelihood ratios ranging 0.31-0.9) and no utility for predicting failure after the second stage of 2-stage revision. CONCLUSIONS Synovial WBC count, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP have modest sensitivity and specificity for predicting persistent infection during the second stage of 2-stage revision, suggesting some combination of these diagnostic tests might be useful before reimplantation. No biomarker or culture accurately predicted treatment failure after reimplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irfan A Khan
- Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Brandon O Boyd
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Antonia F Chen
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Thomas G Myers
- Department of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Timothy S Brown
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Houston Methodist Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Gina A Suh
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Gerald McGwin
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Elie S Ghanem
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Yale A Fillingham
- Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fisher CR, Patel R. Profiling the Immune Response to Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Non-Infectious Arthroplasty Failure. Antibiotics (Basel) 2023; 12:296. [PMID: 36830206 PMCID: PMC9951934 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12020296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Revised: 01/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Arthroplasty failure is a major complication of joint replacement surgery. It can be caused by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or non-infectious etiologies, and often requires surgical intervention and (in select scenarios) resection and reimplantation of implanted devices. Fast and accurate diagnosis of PJI and non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) is critical to direct medical and surgical treatment; differentiation of PJI from NIAF may, however, be unclear in some cases. Traditional culture, nucleic acid amplification tests, metagenomic, and metatranscriptomic techniques for microbial detection have had success in differentiating the two entities, although microbiologically negative apparent PJI remains a challenge. Single host biomarkers or, alternatively, more advanced immune response profiling-based approaches may be applied to differentiate PJI from NIAF, overcoming limitations of microbial-based detection methods and possibly, especially with newer approaches, augmenting them. In this review, current approaches to arthroplasty failure diagnosis are briefly overviewed, followed by a review of host-based approaches for differentiation of PJI from NIAF, including exciting futuristic combinational multi-omics methodologies that may both detect pathogens and assess biological responses, illuminating causes of arthroplasty failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cody R. Fisher
- Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Robin Patel
- Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tang H, Xu J, Yuan W, Wang Y, Yue B, Qu X. Reliable Diagnostic Tests and Thresholds for Preoperative Diagnosis of Non-Inflammatory Arthritis Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Orthop Surg 2022; 14:2822-2836. [PMID: 36181336 PMCID: PMC9627080 DOI: 10.1111/os.13500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2022] [Revised: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/23/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and unify their diagnostic accuracy and the threshold selection of serum and synovial routine tests for PJI at an early stage. Methods We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for retrospective or prospective studies which reported preoperative‐available assays (serum, synovial, or culture tests) for the diagnosis of chronic PJI among inflammatory arthritis (IA) or non‐IA populations from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022. Threshold effective analysis was performed on synovial polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN%), synovial white blood cell (WBC), serum C‐reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) to find the relevant cut‐offs. Results Two hundred and sixteen studies and information from 45,316 individuals were included in the final analysis. Synovial laboratory‐based α‐defensin and calprotectin had the best comprehensive sensitivity (0.91 [0.86–0.94], 0.95 [0.88–0.98]) and specificity (0.96 [0.94‐0.97], 0.95 [0.89–0.98]) values. According to the threshold effect analysis, the recommended cut‐offs are 70% (sensitivity 0.89 [0.85–0.92], specificity 0.90 [0.87–0.93]), 4100/μL (sensitivity 0.90 [0.87–0.93], specificity 0.97 [0.93–0.98]), 13.5 mg/L (sensitivity 0.84 [0.78–0.89], specificity 0.83 [0.73–0.89]), and 30 mm/h (sensitivity 0.79 [0.74–0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.72–0.83]) for synovial PMN%, synovial WBC, serum CRP, and ESR, respectively, and tests seem to be more reliable among non‐IA patients. Conclusions The laboratory‐based synovial α‐defensin and synovial calprotectin are the two best independent preoperative diagnostic tests for PJI. A cut off of 70% for synovial PMN% and tighter cut‐offs for synovial WBC and serum CRP could have a better diagnostic accuracy for non‐IA patients with chronic PJI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haozheng Tang
- Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jialian Xu
- Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Wei'en Yuan
- Ministry of Education Engineering Research Center of Cell & Therapeutic Antibody, School of Pharmacy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - You Wang
- Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Bing Yue
- Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xinhua Qu
- Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Khury F, Oltmanns M, Fuchs M, Leiprecht J, Reichel H, Faschingbauer M. Against the Norm: Do Not Rely on Serum C-Reactive Protein and White Blood Cell Count Only When Assessing Eradication of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Antibiotics (Basel) 2022; 11:antibiotics11091174. [PMID: 36139954 PMCID: PMC9495056 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11091174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 08/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following primary arthroplasty continue to be a serious complication, despite advances in diagnostics and treatment. Two-stage revision arthroplasty has been commonly used as the gold standard for the treatment of PJI. However, much discussion persists regarding the interim of the two-stage procedure and the optimal timing of reimplantation. Serology markers have been proposed as defining parameters for a successful reimplantation. The objective of this matched-pair analysis was to assess the role of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in determining infection eradication and proper timing of reimplantation. We investigated the delta (∆) change in CRP and WBC values prior to both stages of two-stage revision arthroplasty as a useful marker of infection eradication. Methods: We analyzed 39 patients and 39 controls, matched by propensity score matching (BMI, age, ASA-classification), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and treated with a two-stage revision THA or TKA in our institution. Data of serum CRP and WBC values were gathered at two selected time points: prior to the explantation of the implant (preexplantation) and following the completion of antibiotic treatment regimen, both systemic and with a drug-eluting cement spacer (prereimplantation). Patient records were reviewed electronically for preexisting comorbidities, overall health status, synovial fluid cultures, inflammatory serologies, revision surgeries, and recurrent or persistent infection based on the modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Patient demographics, ∆CRP, ∆WBC, and time interval to reimplantation were statistically analyzed using receiver operator curves (ROC), Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Levene’s test, and Student’s t-test. Results: Infection-free patients exhibited higher mean CRP and WBC than did patients who were reinfected at both time points. When comparing preexplantation with prereimplantation values, the median ∆CRP was 9.48 mg/L (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3−36.6 mg/L) for patients who did not develop a reinfection versus 2.74 mg/L (IQR 1.4−14.2 mg/L) for patients who developed reinfection (p = 0.069). The median ∆WBC was 1.5 × 109/L (IQR 0.6−4.0 × 109/L) for patients who remained infection-free versus 1.2 × 109/L (IQR 0.8−2.2 109/L) for patients who developed reinfection (p = 0.072). Analysis of areas under the curve (AUC) using ROC demonstrated poor prediction of persistent infection by ∆CRP (AUC = 0.654) and ∆WBC (AUC = 0.573). Although a highly significant correlation was found between the interim interval and infection persistence (r = 0.655, p < 0.01), analysis using ROC failed to result in a specific threshold time to reimplantation above which patients are at significantly higher risk for reinfection (AUC = 0.507). Conclusion: No association could be determined between the delta change in serum CRP and WBC before and after two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI and reinfection risk. Even though inflammatory serologies demonstrate a downtrending pattern prior to reimplantation, the role of CRP and WBC in determining the optimal timing of reimplantation seems to be dispensable. Planning a second-stage reimplantation requires assessing multiple variables rather than relying on specific numeric changes in these inflammatory marker values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farouk Khury
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Rambam Medical Center, The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa 3109601, Israel
| | - Moritz Oltmanns
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
| | - Michael Fuchs
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
| | - Janina Leiprecht
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
| | - Heiko Reichel
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
| | - Martin Faschingbauer
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081 Ulm, Germany
- Correspondence: or
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Do Serum C-Reactive Protein Trends Predict Treatment Outcome in Patients with Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Undergoing Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty? Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12051030. [PMID: 35626186 PMCID: PMC9139456 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2022] [Revised: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the standard treatment for knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to determine whether serial changes in C-reactive protein (CRP) values can predict the prognosis in patients with knee PJI. We retrospectively enrolled 101 patients with knee PJI treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty at our institution from 2010 to 2016. We excluded patients with spacer complications and confounding factors affecting CRP levels. We tested the association between treatment outcomes and qualitative CRP patterns or quantitative CRP levels. Of the 101 patients, 24 (23.8%) had recurrent PJI and received surgical intervention after two-stage reimplantation. Patients with a fluctuating CRP pattern were more likely to receive antibiotics for a longer period (p < 0.001). There was greater risk of treatment failure if the CRP levels were higher when antibiotics were switched from an intravenous to oral form (p = 0.023). The patients who received antibiotics for longer than six weeks (p = 0.017) were at greater risk of treatment failure after two-stage arthroplasty. Although CRP patterns cannot predict treatment outcomes, CRP fluctuation in the interim period was associated with longer antibiotic duration, which was related to a higher treatment failure rate.
Collapse
|
7
|
Delva ML, Samuel LT, Acuña AJ, Kamath AF. Presepsin as a diagnostic biomarker of peri-prosthetic joint infection: a review of the literature. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY 2022; 33:695-700. [PMID: 35262776 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-022-03232-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION While presepsin has shown promise as a sepsis biomarker, it has only recently been considered in the field of orthopedic surgery. Therefore, the present review evaluates the role of presepsin in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) as well as its diagnostic and prognostic value in diagnosing PJI. METHODS Utilizing 4 online databases, we thoroughly searched the literature for articles evaluating the role of presepsin in TJA as well as its prognostic and diagnostic value for PJI. RESULTS Studies evaluating perioperative presepsin trends in primary TJA demonstrated that its natural course is similar to C-Reactive Protein (CRP). The area under (AUC) the receiver operating characteristic curves values for serum presepsin ranged from 0.86 to 0.926. These values were higher than the AUCs for CRP in each of their respective studies. However, synovial presepsin demonstrated a lower AUC (0.41). Prognostically, presepsin demonstrated potential in terms of infection monitoring following revision TJA for PJI. CONCLUSION Although the data remains limited, presepsin may serve as a potential biomarker to evaluate the natural inflammatory response following TJA as well as to help diagnose PJI. The present review serves to set the foundation for future study into serum presepsin in larger patient cohorts. Further study is needed to evaluate how this biomarker compares to other laboratory values traditionally used for PJI diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mona Lisa Delva
- School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Health Education Campus, 9501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA
| | - Linsen T Samuel
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
| | - Alexander J Acuña
- School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Health Education Campus, 9501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
| | - Atul F Kamath
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
- Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wasterlain AS, Goswami K, Ghasemi SA, Parvizi J. Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Infection: Recent Developments. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102:1366-1375. [PMID: 32769605 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.19.00598] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
➤ There is no absolute test for the preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI); thus, clinical practice relies on a combination of supportive tests and criteria.➤ Novel serum and synovial tests have improved our ability to diagnose PJI. The 2018 evidence-based algorithm for PJI diagnosis provides weighted scores for serum markers, as well as synovial markers, to facilitate diagnosis when major criteria such as positive cultures or a sinus tract are not present.➤ Culture-independent technologies such as next-generation sequencing can facilitate pathogen identification, particularly in the setting of culture-negative PJI.➤ Despite recent developments, PJI diagnosis remains challenging and warrants further innovation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy S Wasterlain
- Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Schwarz EM, Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Aiyer A, Battenberg A, Brown SA, Callaghan JJ, Citak M, Egol K, Garrigues GE, Ghert M, Goswami K, Green A, Hammound S, Kates SL, McLaren AC, Mont MA, Namdari S, Obremskey WT, O'Toole R, Raikin S, Restrepo C, Ricciardi B, Saeed K, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Shohat N, Tan T, Thirukumaran CP, Winters B. 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions. J Orthop Res 2019; 37:997-1006. [PMID: 30977537 DOI: 10.1002/jor.24293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Revised: 02/22/2019] [Accepted: 03/19/2019] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward M Schwarz
- Department of Orthopaedics, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Javad Parvizi
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Thorsten Gehrke
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios Endo Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Amiethab Aiyer
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami/Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| | - Andrew Battenberg
- Department of Orthopaedics, Kaiser Permanente Vacaville Medical Center, Vacaville, California
| | - Scot A Brown
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - John J Callaghan
- Deparment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
| | - Mustafa Citak
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios Endo Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Kenneth Egol
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Grant E Garrigues
- Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Michelle Ghert
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Karan Goswami
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Andrew Green
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Sommer Hammound
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stephen L Kates
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Alex C McLaren
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Michael A Mont
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Surena Namdari
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - William T Obremskey
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Robert O'Toole
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Steven Raikin
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Camilo Restrepo
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Benjamin Ricciardi
- Department of Orthopaedics, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Kordo Saeed
- Department of Microbiology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester and Basingstoke, United Kingdom
- Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Noam Shohat
- Department of Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
| | - Timothy Tan
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Caroline P Thirukumaran
- Department of Orthopaedics, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Brian Winters
- Department of Orthopaedics, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Anemüller R, Belden K, Brause B, Citak M, Del Pozo JL, Frommelt L, Gehrke T, Hewlett A, Higuera CA, Hughes H, Kheir M, Kim KI, Konan S, Lausmann C, Marculescu C, Morata L, Ramirez I, Rossmann M, Silibovsky R, Soriano A, Suh GA, Vogely C, Volpin A, Yombi J, Zahar A, Zimmerli W. Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Antimicrobials: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34:S463-S475. [PMID: 30348582 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
|
11
|
Aalirezaie A, Bauer TW, Fayaz H, Griffin W, Higuera CA, Krenn V, Krenn V, Molano M, Moojen DJ, Restrepo C, Shahi A, Shubnyakov I, Sporer S, Tanavalee A, Teloken M, Velázquez Moreno JD. Hip and Knee Section, Diagnosis, Reimplantation: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34:S369-S379. [PMID: 30343965 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
|
12
|
Barrack R, Bhimani S, Blevins JL, Blevins K, Demetres M, Figgie M, Fillingham Y, Goodman S, Huddleston J, Kahlenberg C, Lautenbach C, Lin J, Lonner J, Lynch M, Malkani A, Martin L, Mirza S, Rahim Najjad MK, Penna S, Richardson S, Sculco P, Shahi A, Szymonifka J, Wang Q. General Assembly, Diagnosis, Laboratory Test: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34:S187-S195. [PMID: 30348554 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
|
13
|
|
14
|
Shohat N, Goswami K, Fillingham Y, Tan TL, Calkins T, Della Valle CJ, George J, Higuera C, Parvizi J. Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Inflammatory Arthritis: Assumption Is the Enemy of True Understanding. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33:3561-3566. [PMID: 30100134 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2018] [Revised: 06/30/2018] [Accepted: 07/16/2018] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite concern over the interpretation of serum and synovial fluid tests to screen and diagnose periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients with inflammatory arthritis, only a single study has investigated this area. We aimed to assess accuracy of clinical and laboratory markers for PJI diagnosis in the context of underlying inflammatory arthritis. METHODS This multicenter study was conducted on total joint arthroplasty patients at 3 different centers between 2001 and 2016. PJI was defined based on Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Acute PJI cases were excluded. Patients operated for a diagnosis other than infection, who did not subsequently fail at 1-year follow-up, were considered aseptic revisions. Serum C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, synovial white blood cell and differential, as well as alpha-defensin and results of frozen section were documented. RESULTS In total, 1220 patients undergoing revision total joint arthroplasty (567 PJI, 653 aseptic) were included. Fifty-five septic patients and 61 in the aseptic group had inflammatory arthritis. Although mean levels of serum C-reactive protein and synovial white blood cell in inflammatory arthritis patients were significantly higher compared to patients without inflammatory arthritis, there were no significant differences in PJI patients. The thresholds associated with increased risk for PJI in patients with and without inflammatory arthritis were similar and closely resembled traditional cut-points. CONCLUSION We demonstrate higher baseline immune upregulation in aseptic revision cases with inflammatory arthritis, but no significant differences are seen for PJI. Conventional PJI thresholds for serum and synovial diagnostic markers should be adhered to. Assumptions about inflammatory arthritis patients needing differential diagnostic protocols should be avoided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noam Shohat
- The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Karan Goswami
- The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Yale Fillingham
- The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Timothy L Tan
- The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | | | | | - Javad Parvizi
- The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|