Detection of bacteria with molecular methods in prosthetic joint infection: sonication fluid better than periprosthetic tissue.

Background and purpose - The correct diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult because bacteria form a biofilm on the surface of the implant. The sensitivity of culture from sonication fluid is better than that from periprosthetic tissue, but no comparison studies using molecular methods on a large scale have been performed. We assessed whether periprosthetic tissue or sonication fluid should be used for molecular analysis. Patients and methods - Implant and tissue samples were retrieved from 87 patients who underwent revision operation of total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Both sample types were analyzed using broad-range (BR-) PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene. The results were evaluated based on the definition of periprosthetic joint infection from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Results - PJI was diagnosed in 29 patients, whereas aseptic failure was diagnosed in 58 patients. Analysis of sonication fluid using BR-PCR detected bacteria in 27 patients, whereas analysis of periprosthetic tissue by BR-PCR detected bacteria in 22 patients. In 6 of 7 patients in whom BR-PCR analysis of periprosthetic tissue was negative, low-virulence bacteria were present. The sensitivity and specificity values for periprosthetic tissue were 76% and 93%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity values for sonication fluid were 95% and 97%. Interpretation - Our results suggest that sonication fluid may be a more appropriate sample than periprosthetic tissue for BR-PCR analysis in patients with PJI. However, further investigation is required to improve detection of bacteria in patients with so-called aseptic failure.

Does Preoperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Influence the Diagnostic Potential of Periprosthetic Tissues in Hip or Knee Infections?

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed low-grade prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are recognized as an important reason for early failure of presumably aseptic revisions. Preoperatively administered antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of PJI but it may reduce the sensitivity of microbiologic periprosthetic tissue cultures and consequently increase the incidence of undiagnosed septic prosthetic joint failures, which can lead to catastrophic serial revisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We wished to determine whether administration of preoperative antibiotics decreases the likelihood of diagnosing PJI in patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty in whom infection is suspected. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and evaluated 40 patients (29 with THAs and 11 with TKAs) who met the following inclusion criteria: older than 18 years, with suspected PJI of unknown cause, undergoing surgical revision. After arthrotomy, three tissue samples were obtained for microbiologic analysis and diagnosis, and antimicrobial prophylaxis (cefazolin 2 g intravenously) then was administered. Later during the procedure, but before débridement and irrigation, the second set of three tissue samples was obtained from the same surgical area and was cultured. Tissue concentration of prophylactic antibiotic was verified with the second set of samples. A positive culture result was defined as one or more positive cultures (growth on agar at or before 14 days). We then compared the yield on the microbiologic cultures obtained before administration of antibiotics with the yield on the cultures obtained after antibiotics were administered. An a priori analysis was performed; with the numbers available, we had 98% power to detect a difference in diagnostic sensitivity of 33%. RESULTS: With the numbers available, we found no difference in the likelihood that an infection would be diagnosed between the samples obtained before and after administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis (odds ratio [OR] for positive microbial culture = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-2.48; p = 0.99). All measured tissue concentrations of cefazolin were greater than the minimum inhibitory concentration, therefore we found that antibiotic prophylaxis was adequate at the time of second-set tissue specimen recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this small, prospective series suggest that preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis may be administered safely even in patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty in which microbiologic sampling is planned without compromising the diagnostic sensitivity of tissue sample cultures. However, before applying our results more generally, our findings need to be confirmed in larger, multicenter studies that would allow evaluation by sex, procedure, bacteriology, and other potentially important factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.

Identification of the same species in at least two intra-operative samples for prosthetic joint infection diagnostics yields the best results with broad-range polymerase chain reaction.

PURPOSE: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. No single laboratory test has perfect sensitivity and specificity; however, culture of periprosthetic tissue is the standard method for PJI diagnosis. Interpretation of positive culture results in PJI diagnostics can be difficult due to the possibility of contamination with microorganisms originating from skin micro flora. Criteria have been established to aid in distinguishing pathogen from contaminant for culture results. A similar criterion has not however been established for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis, which is in part responsible for confusion about the reliability of PCR for PJI diagnostics. The aim of our study was to establish a criterion for interpretation of broad range (BR) PCR results in PJI diagnostics. METHODS: Samples of periprosthetic tissue were retrieved from 100 patients with joint prosthesis failure and analysed with BR-PCR. The results of BR-PCR were evaluated based on the number of samples of periprosthetic tissue with the same bacterial species. RESULTS: The sensitivity (87.5%) of BR-PCR was highest if the same species was present in at least one sample, although this criterion also resulted in the lowest specificity (92.1%). The sensitivity decreased (83.2%), although without a statistically significant difference, if the same species was present in two or more samples but, at the same time, specificity increased (100%), with a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: For diagnostics of PJI with BR-PCR the criterion of the same bacterial species in at least two specimens of periprosthetic tissue from the same patient should be used for interpretation of positive results.

Comparison of molecular and culture method in diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.

Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection with culture technique can be problematic since the causative agent(s) are not possible to cultivate in all cases. Molecular methods had been evaluated in many studies but their inclusion in routine diagnostics is still controversial. The purpose of our prospective study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of broad-range (BR)-PCR and culture technique. Intraoperative samples of periprosthetic tissue were retrieved in 67 patients undergoing revision arthroplasty. Samples were analyzed with culture technique, immunohistochemistry and BR 16S rRNA gene PCR. Bacteria in PCR-positive samples were identified using two different methods: direct sequencing of PCR products and specific TaqMan assays. In 63 cases, full concordance was found between BR-PCR and culture technique. Specific TaqMan assays failed to identify bacteria in four culture- and BR-PCR-positive cases and therefore had a lower sensitivity in comparison with BR-PCR. Molecular methods detected bacteria with the same accuracy as culture; however, identification of bacteria was inferior to culture. Further development of species-recognition techniques is required to improve identification of causative microorganisms.

Analysis of Slovenian MRSA strains with susceptibility patterns suggestive of CA-MRSA.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) differs from healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) in its molecular and microbiological characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six Slovenian regional public health institutes and the National Institute of Public Health took part in monitoring CA-MRSA infections. S. aureus isolates resistant to oxacillin and susceptible to > or = two of the four antibiotics ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, clindamycin or gentamicin were defined as CA-MRSA and further analyzed. The presence of the gene for Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) was confirmed using PCR, the type of staphylococcal cassette chromosome (SCCmec) using multiplex PCR, and macrorestriction analysis of chromosomal DNA using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). RESULTS: A total of 31 strains from 31 patients were analyzed during a period of 21 months: 23 specimens were sent from hospitals, six from primary care, two from a long-term care facility. All 31 isolates contained the gene mecA. Sixteen (51.6%) isolates were identified as SCCmec type IV, three isolates were PVL positive. Using PFGE, the CA-MRSA strains were classified into 15 similarity groups. Results of antibiotic susceptibility showed there were five resistance types among the 31 strains. Simultaneous resistance against ciprofloxacin and gentamicin was often associated with the presence of SCCmec type I, strongly resembling HA-MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: PVL-positive strains of CA-MRSA have been isolated in Slovenia only rarely. We will continue to monitor strains of MRSA in order to obtain the complete microbiological and epidemiological features.