No abstract

PurposeUnexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC) found in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are difficult to interpret. Management goes along with risks for both over‐ and undertreating a potential periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The objective of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of UPIC in revision TKA surgery, evaluate the diagnostic workup process and the postoperative treatment, and assess outcome regarding re‐revision rates. MethodsEvidence was gathered from Medline (PubMed) and Embase published from January 2000 until April 2021. Nine studies with data of UPIC in revision TKA and outcome after at least 2 years of follow‐up were identified. ResultsThe calculated prevalence of UPIC in aseptic knee revision surgery was 8.32%. However, the diagnostical approach differs as well as the used criteria to confirm PJI in presumed aseptic revision surgery. The work‐up generally consists of a serum C‐reactive protein and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, joint fluid aspiration for culture and white blood cell count and formula, and radiographic imaging. Collection of intraoperative cultures is widely used, but inconsistent in sample amount and incubation time. Once a single UPIC is found, surgeons tend to treat it in different ways. Regarding re‐revision rates, the weighted arithmetic mean in the included studies was 18.45% in the unsuspected PJI group compared to 2.94% in the aseptic group. There also seems to be a trend towards higher re‐revision rates when a higher number of intraoperative cultures are positive. ConclusionThe interpretation of UPIC in revision TKA is of utmost importance since the decision whether to treat a UPIC as an unsuspected PJI has a major impact on implant survival and re‐revision rate. Different criteria are used to differentiate between unsuspected PJI and contamination in true aseptic failure, and the heterogeneity amongst the included papers impedes to state a clear recommendation, integrating not only quantitative findings, but also qualitative data such as virulence of the identified microorganism. Level of evidenceSystematic review, III.

The world was not prepared for the global of pandemic in early 2020 with the arrival of COVID 19. Europe has some of the most developed health care systems in the world and this article explains the initial response to the pandemic from an orthopaedic and trauma viewpoint from 8 nations. Italy reported the first cluster in February, which then rapidly spread around the continent, requiring a rapid reorganization of services. The reports highlight how elective surgery was universally stopped, surgical services were reconfigured, and new practices, such as the widespread use of telemedicine, may well become permanent. It also emphasizes how the pandemic has re-educated us on the importance of a consistent and central approach to deal with a global health crisis, and how medical services need to remain flexible and responsive to new ways of working.

Purposes A septic revision of an artificial joint is routinely split up in a so-called dirty phase and a clean phase. The measures taken to initiate the start of the clean phase vary significantly between musculoskeletal infection centers. We performed simulations of one-step exchanges of infected THAs and sought to 1) determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on the sterile field, and 2) determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the new prosthesis completely clean. Methods Nine fresh frozen cadaveric hips were used and primary THA was undertaken via a direct anterior approach. Before implantation of the components varying amounts of fluorescent powder (GloGerm) were deposited, simulating bacterial infection. Second, a one-step exchange was performed via a posterolateral approach. After implant removal, debridement, and lavage, randomization determined which clean phase protocol was followed, i.e. no, some or full additional measures. Finally, the new prosthesis was re-implanted. In order to determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on contamination of the sterile field standardized UV light-enhanced photographs were obtained of 1) the gloves, 2) the instrument table, 3) the drapes, and 4) the wound and these were ranked on cleanliness by a blinded panel of hip surgeons. In order to determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the prosthesis completely clean, the implant was taken out again at the end of the one-step exchange and inspected for contamination under UV light. Results The gloves, the instrument table, the drapes and the wound were significantly cleaner after a clean phase using full additional measures compared to partial or no additional measures (p < 0.000). Partial measures were able to reduce some of the contamination of the gloves and the wound, but had no effect on the drapes and the instrument table. All re-implanted implants were contaminated with some amount of fluorescent powder at the end of the one-step exchange. Conclusions We advise to incorporate a clean phase with full additional measures into the surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections, as partial measures seem to be a poor compromise. Level of evidence Not applicable (cadaveric study).