Background and purpose For prosthetic joint-associated infection (PJI), a regimen of debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis (DAIR) is generally accepted for acute infections. Various risk factors associated with treatment success have been described. The use of local antibiotic carriers (beads and sponges) is relatively unknown. We retrospectively analyzed risk factors in a cohort of patients from 3 hospitals, treated with DAIR for PJI.Patients and methods 91 patients treated with DAIR for hip or knee PJI in 3 Dutch centers between 2004 and 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up was 3 years. Treatment success was defined as absence of infection after 2 years, with retention of the prosthesis and without the use of suppressive antibiotics.Results 60 patients (66%) were free of infection at follow-up. Factors associated with treatment failure were: a history of rheumatoid arthritis, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), ESR at presentation above 60 mm/h, and infection caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Symptom duration of less than 1 week was associated with treatment success. The use of gentamicin sponges was statistically significantly higher in the success group, and the use of beads was higher in the failure group in the univariate analysis, but these differences did not reach significance in the logistic regression analysis. Less surgical procedures were performed in the group treated with sponges than in the group treated with beads.Interpretation In the presence of rheumatoid arthritis, duration of symptoms of more than 1 week, ESR above 60 mm/h, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus PJI, the chances of successful DAIR treatment decrease, and other treatment methods should be considered.

Background and purposeFungal prosthetic joint infections are rare and difficult to treat. This systematic review was conducted to determine outcome and to give treatment recommendations.Patients and methodsAfter an extensive search of the literature, 164 patients treated for fungal hip or knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) were reviewed. This included 8 patients from our own institutions.ResultsMost patients presented with pain (78%) and swelling (65%). In 68% of the patients, 1 or more risk factors for fungal PJI were found. In 51% of the patients, radiographs showed signs of loosening of the arthroplasty. Candida species were cultured from most patients (88%). In 21% of all patients, fungal culture results were first considered to be contamination. There was co-infection with bacteria in 33% of the patients. For outcome analysis, 119 patients had an adequate follow-up of at least 2 years. Staged revision was the treatment performed most often, with the highest success rate (85%).InterpretationFungal PJI resembles chronic bacterial PJI. For diagnosis, multiple samples and prolonged culturing are essential. Fungal species should be considered to be pathogens. Co-infection with bacteria should be treated with additional antibacterial agents.We found no evidence that 1-stage revision, debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention (DAIR) or antifungal therapy without surgical treatment adequately controls fungal PJI. Thus, staged revision should be the standard treatment for fungal PJI. After resection of the prosthesis, we recommend systemic antifungal treatment for at least 6 weeks—and until there are no clinical signs of infection and blood infection markers have normalized. Then reimplantation can be performed.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty, occurring in approximately 1%-2% of all cases. With growing populations and increasing age, PJI will have a growing effect on health care costs. Many risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of developing PJI, including obesity, immune system deficiencies, malignancy, previous surgery of the same joint and longer operating time. Acute PJI occurs either postoperatively (4 wk to 3 mo after initial arthroplasty, depending on the classification system), or via hematogenous spreading after a period in which the prosthesis had functioned properly. Diagnosis and the choice of treatment are the cornerstones to success. Although different definitions for PJI have been used in the past, most are more or less similar and include the presence of a sinus tract, blood infection values, synovial white blood cell count, signs of infection on histopathological analysis and one or more positive culture results. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) is the primary treatment for acute PJI, and should be performed as soon as possible after the development of symptoms. Success rates differ, but most studies report success rates of around 60%-80%. Whether single or multiple debridement procedures are more successful remains unclear. The use of local antibiotics in addition to the administration of systemic antibiotic agents is also subject to debate, and its pro's and con's should be carefully considered. Systemic treatment, based on culture results, is of importance for all PJI treatments. Additionally, rifampin should be given in Staphylococcal PJIs, unless all foreign material is removed. The most important factors contributing to treatment failure are longer duration of symptoms, a longer time after initial arthroplasty, the need for more debridement procedures, the retention of exchangeable components, and PJI caused by Staphylococcus (aureus or coagulase negative). If DAIR treatment is unsuccessful, the following treatment option should be based on the patient health status and his or her expectations. For the best functional outcome, one-or two-stage revision should be performed after DAIR failure. In conclusion, DAIR is the obvious choice for treatment of acute PJI, with good success rates in selected patients. Key words: Arthroplasty; Prosthesis; Infection; Periprosthetic joint infection; Retention; Debridement antibiotics and implant retention; Debridement; Acute Core tip: Acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication after total joint arthroplasty, and occurs either postoperatively or via hematogenous spreading. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), the primary treatment for acute PJI, should be performed as soon as possible after the development of symptoms, and has success rates around 60%-80%. Whether single or multiple debridement procedures are more successful remains unclear. Sys- REVIEW

Patients who underwent 2-stage revision for hip PJI had substantially lower (physical component) (HR)QoL scores, but mental scores were comparable to the general population.

Background Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty is a serious complication that causes severe morbidity and adds a major financial burden to the healthcare system. Although there is plenty of research on the alpha-defensin (AD) test, a meta-analysis consisting of only prospective studies investigating AD's diagnostic efficacy has not been performed. Additionally, some important subgroups such as THA and TKA have not been separately analyzed, particularly regarding two commonly used versions of the AD test, the laboratory-based (ELISA) and lateral-flow (LF). Questions/purposes (1) Does the AD ELISA test perform better in the detection of PJI than the AD LF test, in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity, when including prospective studies only? (2) Are there differences in sensitivity or specificity when using AD ELISA and AD LF tests for PJI diagnosis of THA or TKA PJI separately? Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included prospective studies describing the use of either AD test in the workup of pain after total joint arthroplasty (primary or revision, but not after resection arthroplasty). Fifteen studies (AD ELISA: 4; AD LF: 11) were included, with 1592 procedures. Subgroup data on THA and TKA could be retrieved for 1163 procedures (ELISA THA: 123; LF THA: 257; ELISA TKA: 228; LF TKA: 555). Studies not describing THA or TKA, those not using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria as the standard for determining the presence or absence of PJI, those not clearly reporting data for the AD test for the total cohort, and those describing data published in another study were excluded. Studies were not excluded based on follow-up duration; the MSIS criteria could be used within a few weeks, when test results were available. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. Study quality was generally good. The most frequent sources of bias were related to patient selection (such as unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria) and flow and timing (uncertainty in place and time of aspiration, for example). Heterogeneity was moderate to high; a bivariate random-effects model therefore was used. To answer both research questions, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for AD ELISA and LF test groups and THA and TKA subgroups, and were compared using z-test statistics and meta-regression analysis. Results No differences were found between the AD ELISA and the AD LF for PJI diagnosis in the pooled cohorts (THA and TKA combined), in terms of sensitivity (90% versus 86%; p = 0.43) and specificity (97% versus 96%; p = 0.39). Differences in sensitivity for PJI diagnosis were found between the THA and TKA groups for the AD ELISA test (70% versus 94%; p = 0.008); pooled AD LF test sensitivity did not differ between THA and TKA (80% versus 87%; p = 0.20). No differences in specificity were found in either subgroup. Conclusions Both the AD ELISA and AD LF test can be used in clinical practice because both have high sensitivity and very high specificity for PJI diagnosis. The lower sensitivity found for diagnosis of PJI in THA for the AD ELISA test must be carefully interpreted because the pooled data were heterogenous and only two studies for this group were included. Future research should analyze TKAs and THAs separately to confirm or disprove this finding. Level of Evidence Level II diagnostic study.