It is important to know the spectrum of the microbial aetiology of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) to guide empiric treatment and establish antimicrobial prophylaxis in joint replacements. There are no available data based on large contemporary patient cohorts. We sought to characterize the causative pathogens of PJIs and to evaluate trends in the microbial aetiology. We hypothesized that the frequency of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in PJIs has increased in the recent years. We performed a cohort study in 19 hospitals in Spain, from 2003 to 2012. For each 2-year period (2003-2004 to 2011-2012), the incidence of microorganisms causing PJIs and multidrug-resistant bacteria was assessed. Temporal trends over the study period were evaluated. We included 2524 consecutive adult patients with a diagnosis of PJI. A microbiological diagnosis was obtained for 2288 cases (90.6%). Staphylococci were the most common cause of infection (1492, 65.2%). However, a statistically significant rising linear trend was observed for the proportion of infections caused by Gram-negative bacilli, mainly due to the increase in the last 2-year period (25% in 2003-2004, 33.3% in 2011-2012; p 0.024 for trend). No particular species contributed disproportionally to this overall increase. The percentage of multidrug-resistant bacteria PJIs increased from 9.3% in 2003-2004 to 15.8% in 2011-2012 (p 0.008), mainly because of the significant rise in multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (from 5.3% in 2003-2004 to 8.2% in 2011-2012; p 0.032). The observed trends have important implications for the management of PJIs and prophylaxis in joint replacements.

Background: A combination of laboratory, histopathological and microbiological tests for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been strongly recommended. This study aims to characterize the accuracy of individual or group tests, such as culture of sonicate fluid, synovial fluid and peri-implant tissue, C-reactive protein (CRP) and histopathology for detection of early, delayed and late PJI. Methods: A prospective study of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty from February 2009 to February 2014 was performed in a Spanish tertiary health care hospital. The diagnostic accuracy of the different methods was evaluated constructing receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve areas. Results: One hundred thirty consecutive patients were included: 18 (13.8%) early PJI, 35 (27%) delayed PJI and 77 (59.2%) late PJI. For individual parameters, the area under the ROC curve for peri-implant tissue culture was larger for early (0.917) than for delayed (0.829) and late PJI (0.778), p = 0.033. There was a significantly larger difference for ROC area in the synovial fluid culture for delayed (0.803) than for early (0.781) and late infections (0.679), p = 0.039. The comparison of the areas under the ROC curves for the two microbiological tests showed that sonicate fluid was significantly different from peri-implant tissue in delayed (0.951 vs 0.829, p = 0.005) and late PJI (0.901 vs 0.778, p = 0.000). The conjunction of preoperative parameters, synovial fluid culture and CRP, improved the accuracy for late PJI (p = 0.01). The conjunction of histopathology and sonicate fluid culture increased the area under ROC curve of sonication in early (0.917 vs 1.000); p = 0.06 and late cases (0.901 vs 0.999); p < 0.001. Conclusion: For early PJI, sonicate fluid and peri-implant tissue cultures achieve the same best sensitivity. For delayed and late PJI, sonicate fluid culture is the most sensitive individual diagnostic method. By combining histopathology and peri-implant tissue, all early, 97% of delayed and 94.8% of late cases are diagnosed. The conjunction of histopathology and sonicate fluid culture yields a sensitivity of 100% for all types of infection.

Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head (ONFH) is a disabling disease affecting up to 30,000 people yearly in the United States alone. Diagnosis and staging of this pathology are both technically and logistically challenging, usually relying on imaging studies. Even anatomopathological studies, considered the gold standard for identifying ONFH, are not exempt from problems. In addition, the diagnosis is often made by different healthcare specialists, including orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, using different imaging modes, macroscopic features, and stages. Therefore, it is not infrequent to find disagreements between different specialists. The aim of this paper is to clarify the association and accuracy of ONFH diagnosis between healthcare professionals. To this end, femoral head specimens from patients with a diagnosis of ONFH were collected from patients undergoing hip replacement surgery. These samples were later histologically analyzed to establish an ONFH diagnosis. We found that clinico-radiological diagnosis of ONFH evidences a high degree of histological confirmation, thus showing an acceptable diagnostic accuracy. However, when the diagnoses of radiologists and orthopedic surgeons are compared with each other, there is only a moderate agreement. Our results underscore the need to develop an effective diagnosis based on a multidisciplinary approach to enhance currently limited accuracy and reliability.