Infection: The Final Frontier of Arthroplasty Management: A Proposal for a Global Periprosthetic Joint Infection Registry from a Multinational Collaborative Group, the GAIA (Global Arthroplasty Infection Association)

Update on the role of pathology and laboratory medicine in diagnosing periprosthetic infection

Technological and implant design advances have helped reduce the frequency of aseptic total joint arthroplasty failure, but periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) remain a clinical important problem with high patient morbidity. Misinterpreting PJI as aseptic mechanical loosening commonly leads to unsatisfactory revision arthroplasty, persistent infection, and poor long-term results. While there is no single "gold standard" diagnostic test for PJI, recent collaborative efforts by Orthopaedic and Infectious Disease Societies have developed algorithms for diagnosing PJI. However, the efficacy of individual tests as well as diagnostic thresholds are controversial. We review the recommended thresholds for commonly used screening tests as well as tissue histopathology and confirmatory tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. We also update lesser-known laboratory tests, and we briefly summarize rapidly evolving molecular tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. Pathologists hold a critical role in assisting with PJI diagnosis, maintaining laboratory test quality and interpreting test results. Collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is essential to provide optimal patient care and reduce the burden of PJI.

A desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) for periprosthetic joint infection - a Delphi analysis

Background: Treatment outcomes in studies on prosthetic joint infection are generally assessed using a dichotomous outcome relating to treatment success or failure. These outcome measures neither include patient-centred outcome measures including joint function and quality of life, nor do they account for adverse effects of treatment. A desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) measure can include these factors and has previously been proposed and validated for other serious infections. We aimed to develop a novel DOOR for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: The Delphi method was used to develop a DOOR for PJI research. An international working group of 18 clinicians (orthopaedic surgeons and infectious disease specialists) completed the Delphi process. The final DOOR comprised the dimensions established to be most important by consensus with > 75  % of participant agreement. Results: The consensus DOOR comprised four main dimensions. The primary dimension was patient-reported joint function. The secondary dimensions were infection cure and mortality. The final dimension of quality of life was selected as a tie-breaker. Discussion: A desirability of outcome ranking for periprosthetic joint infection has been proposed. It focuses on patient-centric outcome measures of joint function, cure and quality of life. This DOOR provides a multidimensional assessment to comprehensively rank outcomes when comparing treatments for prosthetic joint infection.

The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Aims

National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI.

Methods

A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR.

Results

In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year.

Conclusion

In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373.