Pleuropulmonary Blastoma (PPB) is the primary neoplastic manifestation of a pediatric cancer predisposition syndrome that is associated with several diseases including cystic nephroma, Wilms tumor, neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma, and ovarian Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor. The primary pathology of PPB, epithelial cysts with stromal hyperplasia and risk for progression to a complex primitive sarcoma, is associated with familial heterozygosity and lesion-associated epithelial loss-of-heterozygosity of DICER1. It has been hypothesized that loss of heterozygosity of DICER1 in lung epithelium is a non-cell autonomous etiology of PPB and a critical pathway that regulates lung development; however, there are no known direct targets of epithelial microRNAs (miRNAs) in the lung. Fibroblast Growth Factor 9 (FGF9) is expressed in the mesothelium and epithelium during lung development and primarily functions to regulate lung mesenchyme; however, there are no known mechanisms that regulate FGF9 expression during lung development. Using mouse genetics and molecular phenotyping of human PPB tissue, we show that FGF9 is overexpressed in lung epithelium in the initial multicystic stage of Type I PPB and that in mice lacking epithelial Dicer1, or induced to overexpress epithelial Fgf9, increased Fgf9 expression results in pulmonary mesenchymal hyperplasia and a multicystic architecture that is histologically and molecularly indistinguishable from Type I PPB. We further show that miR-140 is expressed in lung epithelium, regulates epithelial Fgf9 expression, and regulates pseudoglandular stages of lung development. These studies identify an essential miRNA-FGF9 pathway for lung development and a non-cell autonomous signaling mechanism that contributes to the mesenchymal hyperplasia that is characteristic of Type I PPB.

Abstract. Background: Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be troublesome. Sonication can be a helpful tool in culturing bacteria that are difficult to detect with standard tissue cultures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical importance of our standardized sonication protocol in detecting periprosthetic joint infection.Materials and methods: All patients with revision surgery of a hip or knee prosthesis between 2011 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and divided in two groups: clinically suspected of infection or not suspected of infection. For both tissue culture and implant sonication, calculations of sensitivity and specificity were performed. Clinical relevance of sonication was evaluated by calculating in which percentage of patients' sonication influenced clinical treatment.Results: 226 patients with revision of a total hip prosthesis (122 patients) or a total knee prosthesis (104 patients) were included. Sensitivity of perioperatively taken tissue cultures was 94.3% and specificity was 99.3%. For sonication sensitivity was 80.5% and specificity was 97.8%.In the infection group eight patients (9%) with only one positive tissue culture and a positive sonication fluid culture with the same pathogen were found.Interpretation: Although sensitivity and specificity of sonication was lower compared to tissue cultures, periprosthetic joint infection could only be established in 8 patients (9%) suspected of infection because of a positive result of the sonication fluid culture.Sonication leads to clinically relevant changes in treatment and seems therefore to be a helpful diagnostic tool in clinical practice.

Abstract. Introduction: Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedures are effective treatments for acute postoperative or acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infections. However, literature reporting on the effectiveness of DAIR procedures performed after a one- or two-stage revision because of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (PJI-related revision arthroplasty) is scarce. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the infection control after 1 year of a DAIR procedure in the case of an early postoperative infection either after primary arthroplasty or after PJI-related revision arthroplasty. Materials and methods: All patients treated with a DAIR procedure within 3 months after onset of PJI between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Data were collected on patient and infection characteristics. All infections were confirmed by applying the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2014 criteria. The primary outcome was successful control of infection at 1 year after a DAIR procedure, which was defined as the absence of clinical signs, such as pain, swelling, and erythema; radiological signs, such as protheses loosening; or laboratory signs, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) (<10) with no use of antibiotic therapy. Results: Sixty-seven patients were treated with a DAIR procedure (41 hips and 26 knees). Successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after primary arthroplasty (n=51) and after prior PJI-related revision arthroplasty (n=16) were 69 % and 56 %, respectively (p=0.38). The successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after an early acute infection (n=35) and after a hematogenous infection (n=16) following primary arthroplasty were both 69 % (p=1.00). Conclusion: In this limited study population, no statistically significant difference is found in infection control after 1 year between DAIR procedures after primary arthroplasty and PJI-related revision arthroplasty.