Aims Use of molecular sequencing methods in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and organism identification have gained popularity. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a potentially powerful tool that is now commercially available. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of NGS, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), conventional culture, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and the recently proposed criteria by Parvizi et al in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods In this retrospective study, aspirates or tissue samples were collected in 30 revision and 86 primary arthroplasties for routine diagnostic investigation for PJI and sent to the laboratory for NGS and PCR. Concordance along with statistical differences between diagnostic studies were calculated. Results Using the MSIS criteria to diagnose PJI as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of NGS were 60.9% and 89.9%, respectively, while culture resulted in sensitivity of 76.9% and specificity of 95.3%. PCR had a low sensitivity of 18.4%. There was no significant difference based on sample collection method (tissue swab or synovial fluid) (p = 0.760). There were 11 samples that were culture-positive and NGS-negative, of which eight met MSIS criteria for diagnosing infection. Conclusion In our series, NGS did not provide superior sensitivity or specificity results compared to culture. PCR has little utility as a standalone test for PJI diagnosis with a sensitivity of only 18.4%. Currently, several laboratory tests for PJI diagnosis should be obtained along with the overall clinical picture to help guide decision-making for PJI treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):26–31.
Aims Antifibrinolytic agents, including tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA), have been shown to be safe and effective for decreasing perioperative blood loss and transfusion following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are few prospective studies that directly compare these agents. The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits of intraoperative intravenous TXA with EACA. Patients and Methods A total of 235 patients (90 THA and 145 TKA) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled trial at a single tertiary-care referral centre. In the THA cohort, 53.3% of the patients were female with a median age of 59.8 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53.3 to 68.1). In the TKA cohort, 63.4% of the patients were female with a median age of 65.1 years (IQR 59.4 to 69.5). Patients received either TXA (n = 119) or EACA (n = 116) in two doses intraoperatively. The primary outcome measures included change in haemoglobin level and blood volume, postoperative drainage, and rate of transfusion. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complications, cost, and length of stay (LOS). Results TKA patients who received EACA had greater drainage (median 320 ml (IQR 185 to 420) vs 158 ml (IQR 110 to 238); p < 0.001), increased loss of blood volume (891 ml (IQR 612 to 1203) vs 661 ml (IQR 514 to 980); p = 0.014), and increased haemoglobin change from the preoperative level (2.1 ml (IQR 1.7 to 2.8) vs 1.9 ml (IQR 1.2 to 2.4); p = 0.016) compared with patients who received TXA. For the THA cohort, no statistically significant differences were observed in any haematological outcome measure. One patient in the EACA group required transfusion. No patient in the TXA group required transfusion. There were no statistically significant differences in number or type of postoperative complications or LOS for either THA or TKA patients regardless of whether they received TXA or EACA. Conclusion For hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, EACA is associated with increased perioperative blood loss compared with TXA. However, there is no significant difference in transfusion rate. While further prospective studies are needed to compare the efficacy of each agent, we currently recommend orthopaedic surgeons to select their antifibrinolytic based on cost and regional availability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1093–1099.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.