Background:The challenges of culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have led to the emergence of molecular methods of pathogen identification, including next-generation sequencing (NGS). While its increased sensitivity compared with traditional culture techniques is well documented, it is not fully known which organisms could be expected to be detected with use of NGS. The aim of this study was to describe the NGS profile of culture-negative PJI.Methods:Patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty from June 2016 to August 2020 at 14 institutions were prospectively recruited. Patients meeting International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJI were included in this study. Intraoperative samples were obtained and concurrently sent for both routine culture and NGS. Patients for whom NGS was positive and standard culture was negative were included in our analysis.Results:The overall cohort included 301 patients who met the ICM criteria for PJI. Of these patients, 85 (28.2%) were culture-negative. A pathogen could be identified by NGS in 56 (65.9%) of these culture-negative patients. Seventeen species were identified as common based on a study-wide incidence threshold of 5%. NGS revealed a polymicrobial infection in 91.1% of culture-negative PJI cases, with the set of common species contributing to 82.4% of polymicrobial profiles. Escherichia coli, Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Staphylococcus aureus ranked highest in terms of incidence and study-wide mean relative abundance and were most frequently the dominant organism when occurring in polymicrobial infections.Conclusions:NGS provides a more comprehensive picture of the microbial profile of infection that is often missed by traditional culture. Examining the profile of PJI in a multicenter cohort using NGS, this study demonstrated that approximately two-thirds of culture-negative PJIs had identifiable opportunistically pathogenic organisms, and furthermore, the majority of infections were polymicrobial.Level of Evidence:Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Aims Whether patient-reported pain differs among surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unclear. This study’s purposes were to determine differences in pain based on surgical approach (direct anterior (DA) vs posterolateral (PL)) and PL approach incision length. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective investigation from two centres and seven surgeons (three DA, three PL, one both) of primary THAs. PL patients were categorized for incision length (6 cm to 8 cm, 8 cm to 12 cm, 12 cm to 15 cm). All patients had cementless femoral and acetabular fixation, at least one year’s follow-up, and well-fixed components. Patients completed a pain-drawing questionnaire identifying the location and intensity of pain on an anatomical diagram. Power analysis indicated 800 patients in each cohort for adequate power to detect a 4% difference in pain (alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.80). Results A total of 1848 patients (982 DA, 866 PL) were included. PL patients were younger (59.4 years, sd 12.9 vs 62.7 years, sd 9.7; p < 0.001) and had shorter follow-up (3.3 years, sd 1.3 vs 3.7 years, sd 1.3; p < 0.001). DA patients reported decreased moderate to severe trochanteric (14% vs 21%; p < 0.001) and groin pain (19% vs 24%; p = 0.004) than PL patients. There were no differences in anterior, lateral, or posterior thigh, back, or buttock pain between cohorts (p = 0.05 to 0.7). PL approach incision length did not impact the incidence or severity of pain (p = 0.3 to 0.7). Conclusion A significant proportion of patients perceive persistent pain following THA regardless of approach. DA patients reported less trochanteric and groin pain versus PL patients. PL incision length did not influence the incidence or severity of patient-reported pain. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):31–36.
Background:Recent advances in high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies have made it possible to characterize the microbial profile in anatomical sites previously assumed to be sterile. We used this approach to explore the microbial composition within joints of osteoarthritic patients.Methods:This prospective multicenter study recruited 113 patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty between 2017 and 2019. Demographics and prior intra-articular injections were noted. Matched synovial fluid, tissue, and swab specimens were obtained and shipped to a centralized laboratory for testing. Following DNA extraction, microbial 16S-rRNA sequencing was performed.Results:Comparisons of paired specimens indicated that each was a comparable measure for microbiological sampling of the joint. Swab specimens were modestly different in bacterial composition from synovial fluid and tissue. The 5 most abundant genera were Escherichia, Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas. Although sample size varied, the hospital of origin explained a significant portion (18.5%) of the variance in the microbial composition of the joint, and corticosteroid injection within 6 months before arthroplasty was associated with elevated abundance of several lineages.Conclusions:The findings revealed that prior intra-articular injection and the operative hospital environment may influence the microbial composition of the joint. Furthermore, the most common species observed in this study were not among the most common in previous skin microbiome studies, suggesting that the microbial profiles detected are not likely explained solely by skin contamination. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between the hospital and a “closed” microbiome environment. These findings contribute to establishing the baseline microbial signal and identifying contributing variables in the osteoarthritic joint, which will be valuable as a comparator in the contexts of infection and long-term arthroplasty success.Level of Evidence:Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.