Characteristics and outcome of knee prosthetic joint infections (PJI): A 10-year cohort study (2000-2009)

Background: Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) lead to significant long-term morbidity with high cost of healthcare. We evaluated characteristics of infections and the infection and functional outcome of knee PJI over a 10-year period. Methods: All patients hospitalized at our institution from 1/2000 through 12/2009 with knee PJI (defined as growth of the same microorganism in ≥2 tissue or synovial fluid cultures, visible purulence, sinus tract or acute inflammation on tissue histopathology) were included. Patients, their relatives and/or treating physicians were contacted to determine the outcome. Results: During the study period, 61 patients with knee PJI were identified. The median age at the time of diagnosis of infection was 73 y (range, 53-94 y); 52% were men. Median hospital stay was 37 d (range, 1-145 d). Most reasons for primary arthroplasty was osteoarthritis (n = 48), trauma (n = 9) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 4). 23 primary surgeries (40%) were performed at CHUV, 34 (60%) elsewhere. After surgery, 8 PJI were early (<3 months), 16 delayed (3-24 months) and 33 late (>24 months). PJI were treated with (i) open or arthroscopic debridement with prosthesis retention in 26 (46%), (ii) one-stage exchange in 1, (iii) two-stage exchange in 22 (39%) and (iv) prosthesis removal in 8 (14%). Isolated pathogens were S. aureus (13), coagulase-negative staphylococci (10), streptococci (5), enterococci (3), gram-negative rods (3) and anaerobes (3). Patients were followed for a median of 3.1 years, 2 patients died (unrelated to PJI). The outcome of infection was favorable in 50 patients (88%), whereas the functional outcome was favorable in 33 patients (58%). Conclusions: With the current treatment concept, the high cure rate of infection (88%) is associated with a less favorable functional outcome o 58%. Earlier surgical intervention and more rapid and improved diagnosis of infection may improve the functional outcome of PJI.

Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections

Prosthetic joint replacement is one of the most successful surgical procedures of the last century and the number of implanted artificial joints is rapidly growing. While the result of the procedure is generally positive, infections may occur leading to patient suffering, surgeon's frustration and important costs to the health system. Infection after prosthetic joint replacement is thus a feared complication as healing rates can be low, functional result poor and satisfaction of the patient abysmal. However, if a patient-adapted treatment of infected total joints is used, an overall success rate of above 90 % can be obtained. The patient-adapted treatment concept is based on five strong pillars: teamwork, understanding biofilm, proper diagnostics, proper definition and classification and patient-tailored treatment.

Prosthetic joint infections : A retrospective study on the timing of reimplantation in a two-stage exchange

Different therapeutic options for prosthetic joint infections exist, but surgery remains the key. With a two-stage exchange procedure, a success rate above 90% can be expected. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal duration between explantation and the reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare treatment outcomes between short-interval and long-interval two-stage exchanges. Patients having a two-stage exchange of a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) between 1999 and 2013 were included. The satisfaction of the patient, the function of the articulation and the eradication of infection, were compared between patients having a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (4 weeks and more) interval during a two-stage procedure. Patient satisfaction was defined as good if the patient did not have pain and bad if the patient had pain. Functional outcome was defined good if the patient had a prosthesis in place and could walk, medium if the prosthesis was in place but the patient could not walk, and bad if the prosthesis was no longer in place. Infection outcome was considered good if there had been no re-infection and bad if there had been a re-infection of the prosthesis 145 patients (100 hips, 45 knees) were identified with a median age of 68 years (range 19-103). The median hospital stay was 58 days (range 10-402). The median follow-up was 12.9 months (range 0.5-152). 28 % and 72 % of the patients had a short-interval and long-interval exchange of the prosthesis, respectively. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome and infection outcome for patients having a short versus a long interval are reported in the Table. The patient satisfaction was higher when a long interval was performed whereas the functional and infection outcomes were higher when a short interval was performed. According to this study a short-interval exchange appears preferable to a long interval, especially in the view of treatment effectiveness and functional outcome.

Acute haematogenous prosthetic joint infection: prospective evaluation of medical and surgical management

The optimum treatment for prosthetic joint infections has not been clearly defined. We report our experience of the management of acute haematogenous prosthetic joint infection (AHPJI) in patients during a 3-year prospective study in nine Spanish hospitals. Fifty patients, of whom 30 (60%) were female, with a median age of 76 years, were diagnosed with AHPJI. The median infection-free period following joint replacement was 4.9 years. Symptoms were acute in all cases. A distant previous infection and/or bacteraemia were identified in 48%. The aetiology was as follows: Staphylococcus aureus, 19; Streptococcus spp., 14; Gram-negative bacilli, 12; anaerobes, two; and mixed infections, three. Thirty-four (68%) patients were treated with a conservative surgical approach (CSA) with implant retention, and 16 had prosthesis removal. At 2-year follow-up, 24 (48%) were cured, seven (14%) had relapsed, seven (14%) had died, five (10%) had persistent infection, five had re-infection, and two had an unknown evolution. Overall, the treatment failure rates were 57.8% in staphylococcal infections and 14.3% in streptococcal infections. There were no failures in patients with Gram-negative bacillary. By multivariate analysis, CSA was the only factor independently associated with treatment failure (OR 11.6; 95% CI 1.29-104.8). We were unable to identify any factors predicting treatment failure in CSA patients, although a Gram-negative bacillary aetiology was a protective factor. These data suggest that although conservative surgery was the only factor independently associated with treatment failure, it could be the first therapeutic choice for the management of Gram-negative bacillary and streptococcal AHPJI, and for some cases with acute S. aureus infections.

Daptomycin-associated eosinophilic pneumonia in two patients with prosthetic joint infection.

Background: Daptomycin is used increasingly to treat prosthetic joint infection (PJI). A possible side effect of this drug is eosinophilic pneumonia. We describe two patients with PJI treated with daptomycin who had this side effect with different clinical presentations. METHODS: Case reports and review of the literature. RESULTS: The first case was a 64-year-old male who received daptomycin as a part of the treatment for PJI caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE). He developed fever without other symptoms; bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) revealed eosinophils. The second was a 61-year-old male who also used daptomycin as part of the treatment of PJI caused by MRSE and developed severe lung symptoms. Bronchoalveolar lavage and pleural fluid showed an increased number of eosinophils. CONCLUSION: Daptomycin-induced pneumonia can present with a wide range of symptoms, from fever alone to severe lung symptoms. Surgeons should be aware of this possible side effect when prescribing daptomycin.

Failure of the surgical treatment in 115 infected hip arthroplasties-­analysis of a 12-­year prosthetic joint cohort study (1999-­2010)

Background:¦Infection after total or partial hip arthroplasty (HA) leads to significant long-­term morbidity and high healthcare cost. We evaluated reasons for treatment failure of different surgical modalities in a 12-­year prosthetic hip joint infection cohort study.¦Method:¦All patients hospitalized at our institution with infected HA were included either retrospectively (1999-­‐2007) or prospectively¦(2008-­‐2010). HA infection was defined as growth of the same microorganism in ≥2 tissues or synovialfluid culture, visible purulence, sinus tract or acute inflammation on tissue histopathology. Outcome analysis was performed at outpatient visits, followed by contacting patients, their relatives and/or treating physicians afterwards.¦Results:¦During the study period, 117 patients with infected HA were identified. We excluded 2 patients due to missing data. The average age was 69 years (range, 33-­‐102 years); 42% were female. HA was mainly performed for osteoarthritis (n=84), followed by trauma (n=22), necrosis (n=4), dysplasia(n=2), rheumatoid arthritis (n=1), osteosarcoma (n=1) and tuberculosis (n=1). 28 infections occurred early(≤3 months), 25 delayed (3-­‐24 months) and 63 late (≥24 months after surgery). Infected HA were¦treated with (i) two-­‐stage exchange in 59 patients (51%, cure rate: 93%), (ii) one-­‐stage exchange in 5 (4.3%, cure rate: 100%), (iii) debridement with change of mobile parts in 18 (17%, cure rate: 83%), (iv) debridement without change of mobile¦parts in 17 (14%, cure rate : 53% ), (v) Girdlestone in 13 (11%, cure rate: 100%), and (vi) two-­‐stage exchange followed by¦removal in 3 (2.6%). Patients were followed for an average of 3.9 years (range, 0.1 to 9 years), 7 patients died unrelated to the infected HA. 15 patients (13%) needed additional operations, 1 for mechanical reasons(dislocation of spacer) and 14 for persistent infection: 11 treated with debridement and retention (8 without change; and 3 with change of mobile parts) and 3 with two-­‐stage exchange. The average number of surgery was 2.2 (range, 1 to 5). The infection was finally eradicated in all patients, but the functional outcome remained unsatisfactory in 20% (persistent pain or impaired mobility due to spacer or Girdlestone situation).¦Conclusions:¦Non-­‐respect of current treatment concept leads to treatment failure with subsequent operations. Precise analysis of each treatment failure can be used for improving the treatment algorithm leading to better results.

Failure of surgical treatment in 115 infected total hip arthroplasties - analysis of a 12-year prosthetic joint cohort study (1999-2010)

Infection of total hip arthroplasties (THA) leads to significant long-termmorbidity and high healthcare costs. We evaluated the differentreasons for treatment failure using different surgical modalities in a12-year prosthetic joint infection cohort study.Method: All patients hospitalized at our institution with infected THAwere included either retrospectively (1999-2007) or prospectively(2008-2010). THA infection was defined as growth of the same microorganismin ≥2 tissue or synovial fluid culture, visible purulence, sinustract or acute inflammation on tissue histopathology. Outcome analysiswas performed at outpatient visits, followed by contacting patients,their relatives and/or treating physicians afterwards.Results: During the study period, 117 patients with THA were identified.We exclude 2 patients due to missing data. The median age was69 years (range, 33-102 years); 42% were women. THA was mainlyperformed for osteoarthritis (n = 84), followed by trauma (n = 22),necrosis (n = 4), dysplasia (n = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1), osteosarcoma(n = 1) and tuberculosis (n = 1). 28 infections occurred early(≤3 months), 25 delayed (3-24 months) and 63 late (≥24 months aftersurgery). Infected THA were treated with (i) two-stage exchange in59 patients (51%, cure rate: 93%), (ii) one-stage exchange in 5 (4.3%,cure rate: 100%), (iii) debridement with change of mobile parts in18 (17%, cure rate: 83%), (iv) debridement without change of mobileparts in 17 (14%, cure rate: 53% ), (v) Girdlestone in 13 (11%, curerate: 100%), and (vi) two-stage exchange followed by removal in 3(2.6%). Patients were followed for a mean of 3.9 years (range, 0.1 to 9years), 7 patients died unrelated to the infected THA. 15 patients (13%)needed additional operations, 1 for mechanical reasons (dislocationof spacer) and 14 for persistent infection: 11 treated with debridementand retention (8 without change and 3 with change of mobile parts)and 3 with two-stage exchange. The mean number of surgery was 2.2(range, 1 to 5). The infection was finally eradicated in all patients, butthe functional outcome remained unsatisfactory in 20% (persistentpain or impaired mobility due to spacer or Girdlestone situation).Conclusions: Non-respect of current treatment concept leads totreatment failure with subsequent operations. Precise analysis of eachtreatment failures can be used for improving the treatment algorithmleading to better results.

Multiplex PCR of sonication fluid accurately differentiates between prosthetic joint infection and aseptic failure.

OBJECTIVE: Cultures have limited sensitivity in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), especially in low-grade infections. We assessed the value of multiplex PCR in differentiating PJI from aseptic failure (AF). METHODS: Included were patients in whom the joint prosthesis was removed and submitted for sonication. The resulting sonication fluid was cultured and investigated by multiplex PCR, and compared with periprosthetic tissue culture. RESULTS: Among 86 explanted prostheses (56 knee, 25 hip, 3 elbow and 2 shoulder prostheses), AF was diagnosed in 62 cases (72%) and PJI in 24 cases (28%). PJI was more common detected by multiplex PCR (n=23, 96%) than by periprosthetic tissue (n=17, 71%, p=0.031) or sonication fluid culture (n=16, 67%, p=0.016). Among 12 patients with PJI who previously received antibiotics, periprosthetic tissue cultures were positive in 8 cases (67%), sonication fluid cultures in 6 cases (50%) and multiplex PCR in 11 cases (92%). In AF cases, periprosthetic tissue grew organisms in 11% and sonication fluid in 10%, whereas multiplex PCR detected no organisms. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex PCR of sonication fluid demonstrated high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (100%) for diagnosing PJI, providing good discriminative power towards AF, especially in patients previously receiving antibiotics.

Corynebacterium bovis shoulder prosthetic joint infection: the first reported case.

We report the first case of Corynebacterium bovis shoulder prosthetic joint infection. The organism was isolated from intraoperative tissue culture and from the removed prosthesis using sonication. A 2-stage exchange and 3 months of antibiotic therapy were performed. C. bovis may cause implant-associated infections, which can manifest as low-grade infection.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections.

Advances in implant design, surgical technique, peri-operative antimicrobial prophylaxis and laminar airflow operating room environment have made total joint arthroplasty one of the most successful surgical procedures of all times. Orthopaedic implants, however, remain prone to microbial contamination resulting in persistent risk of implant-associated infection. Treatment of infections associated with orthopaedic devices usually requires appropriate surgical intervention combined with a prolonged antimicrobial therapy. The choice of the best possible treatment regimen depends on duration and pathogenesis of infection, stability of the implant, antimicrobial susceptibility of the pathogen and condition of the surrounding soft tissue. In addition towell known diagnostic procedures new promising tools for rapid and correct microbial diagnosis are being developed as correct diagnosis of the responsible micro-organism and this is paramount for successful treatment of prosthetic joint infection.

[Periprosthetic joint infections - a review for general practitioners]

The number of prosthetic joint implantation is continuously increasing. Periprosthetic joint infection is a rare but serious complication. The correct diagnosis is essential for successful treatment. It requires the close collaboration between general practitioners, orthopaedic surgeons and infectious disease specialists. A delayed diagnosis sets hurdles to the medical and surgical treatment. Also, antimicrobial treatment without proper microbiological sampling must be avoided. Swabs from wounds are not helpful, because the results represent the skin flora, but not the causative pathogen of infection. The general practitioner is the first physician that patients contact and has, therefore, a central role in diagnosing and managing periprosthetic joint infections. In this review, classification, diagnostic means and treatment concepts of periprosthetic joint infections are presented.

Sonication: a valuable technique for diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most severe complication, following joint arthroplasty. Identification of the causal microbial factor is of paramount importance for the successful treatment. PURPOSE The aim of this study is to compare the sonication fluid cultures derived from joint prosthetic components with the respective periprosthetic tissue cultures. METHODS Explanted prosthesis components for suspected infection were placed into a tank containing sterile Ringer's solution and sonicated for 1 minute at 40 kHz. Sonication fluid cultures were examined for 10 days, and the number and identity of any colony morphology was recorded. In addition, periprosthetic tissue specimens (>5) were collected and cultured according to standard practice. The duration of antimicrobial interruption interval before culture sampling was recorded. RESULTS Thirty-four patients composed the study group. Sonication fluid cultures were positive in 24 patients (70.5%). Sixteen of thirty four periprosthetic tissue cultures (47.1%) were considered positive, all revealing the same microbial species with the respective sonication fluid cultures: 3 tissue samples showed polymicrobial infection. All tissue cultures were also found positive by the sonication fluid culture. CONCLUSIONS Sonication fluid cultures represent a cheap, easy, accurate, and sensitive diagnostic modality demonstrating increased sensitivity compared to periprosthetic tissue cultures (70.5 versus 47.1%).