Background: Continuous wound drainage after arthroplasty can lead to the development of a periprosthetic joint infection. Closed incisional negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) has been reported to help alleviate drainage and other wound complications. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial is to compare the use of ciNPWT with our standard of care dressing in revision arthroplasty patients who were at high risk to develop wound complications. Methods: A total of 160 patients undergoing elective revision arthroplasty were prospectively randomized to receive either ciNPWT or a silver-impregnated occlusive dressing after surgery in a single institution. Patients were included if they had at least 1 risk factor for developing wound complication(s): wound complication, readmission, and reoperation rates were collected at 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: The postoperative wound complication rate was significantly higher in the control cohort compared to the ciNPWT cohort (19 [23.8%] vs 8 [10.1%], P ¼ .022). There was no significant difference between the control and ciNPWT cohorts in terms of readmissions (19 [23.8%] vs 16 [20.3%], P ¼ .595). Reoperation rate was higher in controls compared to ciNPWT patients (10 [12.5%] vs 2 [2.5%], P ¼ .017). After adjusting for the history of a prior periprosthetic joint infection and inflammatory arthritis, the ciNPWT cohort had a significantly decreased wound complication rate (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.68). Conclusion: ciNPWT may decrease the rate of postoperative wound complications in patients who are at an increased risk of such wound issues after revision arthroplasty.

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Chronic suppression with oral antibiotics increased the infection-free prosthetic survival rate following surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection. Patients who underwent irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange and those who had a Staphylococcus aureus infection had the greatest benefit.

Background Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requires a combination of clinical and laboratory parameters, which may be expensive and difficult to interpret. Synovial fluid cytokines have been shown to accurately differentiate septic from aseptic failed total knee (TKA) and hip (THA) arthroplasties. However, after firststage explantation, there is still no reliable test to rule out PJI before a second-stage reimplantation procedure. Questions/purposes (1) Which synovial fluid cytokines have the highest diagnostic accuracy for PJI? (2) Which cytokine shows the greatest decrease associated with the resolution of infection in the same patient between explantation and subsequent reimplantation of an infected arthroplasty? (3) What is the accuracy of synovial fluid cytokines and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria to rule out PJI after first-stage explantation? (4) What are the most studied synovial fluid cytokines for diagnosing PJI as reported in the literature and what are their cumulative diagnostic accuracy? Methods Between May 2013 and March 2014, 104 patients with painful THA and TKA evaluated for possible PJI were included in our study. Of these, 90 (87%) had cytokine levels measured from synovial fluid samples collected as part of this prospective study (n = 33 hips, n = 57 knees). A second group of 35 patients (n = 36 samples) who presented during the same time period with an antibiotic spacer also had synovial cytokines measured before second-stage reimplantation. For the first group of 90 patients, the MSIS definition classified each joint at the time of surgery as infected (n = 31) or not infected (n = 59) and was used as the standard to test the accuracy in diagnosing PJI. Of the 35 patients with synovial marker data before second-stage surgery, 15 patients had cytokine measurements both at explantation and reimplantation and were used to quantify the change between stages. The reimplantation group had a minimum 1-year followup (with four [11%] patients lost to followup) and was classified into successful or failed treatment based on DelphiOne of the authors certifies that he (CAH), or a member of his immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI, USA), an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from KCI (San Antonio, TX, USA), an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from Myoscience (Fresno, CA, USA), and an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from CD Diagnostics (Claymont, DE, USA). One of the authors certifies that he (WKB), or a member of his immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from Stryker, an amount of USD 100,000 to USD 1,000,000 from Exatech (Gainesville, FL, USA), an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Custom Orthopaedic Solutions (Cleveland, OH, USA), and an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from KEF Healthcare (Dubai, UAE). All ICMJE Conflict of Intere...

Background: Based on current guidelines from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), a number of prophylactic modalities for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in total joint arthroplasty may be used. It is common practice that more potent prophylactic agents are used for patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism. However, we are aware of no studies that have investigated the efficacy of potent anticoagulation in higher-risk individuals. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to test the hypothesis that low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin result in a reduction in venous thromboembolism events in high-risk patients. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of 60,467 primary and revision total joint arthroplasties from 2000 to 2015 was performed. Identified medications were classified as aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or warfarin. Patients with unavailable venous thromboembolism prophylaxis information or those not receiving the aforementioned prophylaxis were excluded. Information pertinent to the objective of this study was collected and a venous thromboembolism risk score was calculated based on 26 variables. Treatment outcomes assessed included 90-day rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and periprosthetic joint infection. Propensity score matching was performed (1:1), as well as logistic regression analysis on the total sample. Results: Aspirin prophylaxis demonstrated a lower rate of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and venous thromboembolism than warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin alone throughout all risk scores. In the matched propensity score analysis, low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin demonstrated increased odds of venous thromboembolism for both standard-risk and high-risk patients undergoing total knee arthroplasties compared with aspirin. For primary total hip arthroplasty, warfarin demonstrated an increased risk for high-risk patients and low-molecular-weight heparin demonstrated an increased risk for standard-risk patients. The prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection was higher in patients receiving warfarin (p < 0.001 for both comparisons of warfarin with aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin). Conclusions: The results of this multi-institutional study demonstrate that the use of warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin in higher-risk patients does not necessarily result in a reduction in symptomatic venous thromboembolism. Aspirin administered to higher-risk patients seems to be as effective as potent anticoagulation and more effective than warfarin. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.