Louis Pasteur once said that: "Fortune favours the prepared mind." As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

No 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. ICM, International Consensus Meeting; MSKI, musculoskeletal infections; RW, research workgroup. * 2018 ICM RW consensus on the current and projected incidences of infection, and costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties. These estimates, which were compiled from information were obtained from: (i) recent peer-reviewed publications, (ii) analysis of 2015 national administrative data using HCUPNet (https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/#setup), and (iii) RW expertise. 998 SCHWARZ ET AL.

No abstract

No abstract

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most feared and challenging complications following total knee arthroplasty. We provide a detailed description of our current understanding regarding the management of PJI of the knee, including diagnostic aids, pre-operative planning, surgical treatment, and outcome.

BackgroundA key issue in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the correct diagnosis. The main problem is lack of diagnostic tools able to diagnose a PJI with high accuracy. Alpha-defensin has been proposed as a possible solution, but in the current literature, there is a lack of independent validation.Questions/purposesWe performed a prospective study to determine (1) what is the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and the negative predictive values of the alpha-defensin immunoassay test in diagnosing PJI; and (2) which clinical features may be responsible for false-positive and false-negative results?MethodsPreoperative aspiration was performed in all patients presenting with a painful hip/knee arthroplasty, including both primary and revision implants. Metallosis, other inflammatory comorbidities, and previous/concomitant antibiotic therapy were not considered as exclusion criteria. An inadequate amount of synovial fluid for culture was an exclusion criterion. A total of 156 patients (65 knees, 91 hips) were included in this prospective study. At the time of revision, synovial fluid samples were taken to perform the alpha-defensin assay. During surgical débridement of tissue, samples for cultures and histologic evaluation were taken, and samples were cultured until positive or until negative at 14 days. A diagnosis of PJI was confirmed in 29 patients according to the International Consensus Group on PJI.ResultsThe sensitivity of the alpha-defensin immunoassay was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%–99%), the specificity was 97% (95% CI, 92%–99%), the positive predictive value was 88% (95% CI, 81%–92%), and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI, 96%–99%). Among four false-positive patients, two had metallosis and one had polyethylene wear. The false-negative case presented with a draining sinus, and intraoperative cultures were also negative.ConclusionsAlpha-defensin assay appears to be a reliable test, but followup evaluation is needed to estimate longer term performance of the test. The authors believe that alpha-defensin has demonstrated itself to be sufficiently robust that PJI diagnostic criteria now should include this test. Future studies are needed to compare the differences among the diagnostic capability of the available tests, in particular when metallosis is present, because metallosis may predispose the test to a false-positive result.Level of EvidenceLevel I, diagnostic study.

Background Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Although two-stage exchange is the preferred management method of patients with chronic PJI in TKA in North America, one-stage exchange is an alternative treatment method, but long-term studies of this approach have not been conducted. Questions/purposes We reviewed our minimum 9-year results of 70 patients who underwent one-stage exchange arthroplasty with a rotating hinge design to determine: (1) What was the proportion of patients free of infection? (2) What was the patient rate of survival free of any reoperation? (3) What were the clinical outcomes as measured by Hospital for Special Surgery scores? (4) What proportion of patients developed radiographic evidence of loosening? Methods All one-stage revision TKAs for infection between January 1 and December 31, 2002, with a minimum 9-year followup (mean, 10 years; range, 9-11 years), in which patients had been seen within the last 1 year, were included in this retrospective review. During that period, 11 patients with infected TKAs were treated with other approaches (including two-stage approaches in eight); the general indication for one-stage revision was the diagnosis of PJI with a known causative organism. Exclusion criteria were culture-negative preoperative aspiration, known allergy to local antibiotics or bone cement, or cases in which radical débridement was impossible as a result of the involvement of important anatomical structures. Eightyone patients with PJI were seen during this period; 70 underwent one-stage exchange using our strict protocol and were reimplanted with a rotating hinge TKA. Eleven patients (15.7%) were lost to followup. Hospital for Special Surgery scores were recorded and all radiographs were evaluated for prosthetic loosening. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection or any other cause. Results Our 10-year infection-free survival was 93% (mean, 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%; p\0.007); and the patient 10-year survival rate free of revision for other causes was 91% (mean, 5.2; 95% CI, 86%-95%; p\0.002). Mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score at last followup was 69.6 (± 22.5 SD; range, 22-100) and the mean improvement in Hospital for Special Surgery knee score from preoperative to most recent followup was 35 (± 24.2 SD; range, 13-99). Evidence of radiographic loosening was seen in 11 patients at last followup, whereby in six patients, there was need for revision surgery.Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 neith...