Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (SuPAR) Analysis for Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptors (suPARs) are a biomarker for inflammatory diseases. This study aims to investigate its diagnostic properties regarding periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who underwent joint puncture for suspected PJI. The presence of PJI was determined according to the criteria of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). Laboratory study analyses included the determination of white blood cells (WBC) in whole blood, C-reactive protein (CRP) in blood plasma, and suPAR in both blood plasma and synovial fluid. Appropriate diagnostic cut-off values were identified utilizing Youden's J, and their diagnostic performance was determined by calculating the positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for each marker. Sixty-seven cases were included in the final analysis. Forty-three samples (64%) were identified as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and twenty-four specimen (36%) were PJI negative cases. The PPV and NPV were 0.80 and 0.70 for synovial suPAR, 0.86 and 0.55 for CRP, 0.84 and 0.31 for WBC and 1.00 and 0.31 for plasma suPAR. Synovial suPAR showed a solid diagnostic performance in this study and has the potential to be an alternative or complementary biomarker for PJI. Further investigations in larger patient collectives are indicated.

Total joint arthroplasty versus resection-interposition arthroplasty for thumb carpometacarpal arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thumb carpometacarpal (TCMC) osteoarthritis is a common condition that causes pain and functional limitations. We compared the outcomes of 2 surgical procedures for TCMC osteoarthritis, the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty and the double-mobility TCMC prosthesis, and focused on pain relief, functional outcomes, and patient quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 7-year period a randomized controlled trial including 183 cases of TCMC osteoarthritis was conducted comparing a double mobility TCMC prosthesis (Moovis, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty. Pre- and postoperative examinations included the range of motion (ROM), SFMcGill score, visual analogue scale (VAS), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH), and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). RESULTS: At the 6-week postoperative follow-up, significant differences were found in VAS: Epping median 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-5.0) vs. TCMC prosthesis 2.0 (IQR 0.25-4.0), p = 0.03, effect size (area under the curve [AUC]) 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.73), in DASH score: Epping 61 (IQR 43-75) vs. TCMC prosthesis 45 (IQR 29-57), p < 0.001, AUC 0.69 (CI 0.61- 0.78), and in radial abduction: Epping 55 (IQR 50-60) vs. TCMC prosthesis 62 (IQR 60-70), p = 0.001, AUC 0.70 (CI 0.61-0.79). No significant group differences were found at the 6- and 12-months follow-up. During the follow-up period, 3 of 82 prostheses had to be revised but there was no revision in the Epping group. CONCLUSION: The double mobility TCMC prosthesis had superior outcomes compared with the Epping procedure at 6 weeks; however, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The implant survival rate of 96% after 12 months was acceptable.

Excellent mid-term osseointegration and implant survival using metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is a very promising treatment option for extended bone defects. Currently published mid-term results remain limited. The purpose was to analyse the implant durability, the clinical and the radiological mid-term results in RTKA when using metaphyseal sleeves. METHODS: Clinical and radiological follow-up examinations were performed in 92 patients (93 knees) with RTKA using hybrid fixation technique (cementless sleeves and stem). Radiographic measurements regarding osseointegration at the bone-sleeve interface were performed and the range of motion (ROM), a subjective satisfaction score (SSS), the American Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as well as the SF-36 Health survey were examined. Bone defects were analysed using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. RESULTS: No knee had to be revised due to aseptic loosening at the time of the follow-up (mean 6.3 years ± 2.3, minimum 2 years). Satisfactory radiographic osseointegration at the sleeve/bone interface was detected in 96.1% of cases. 17 knees (18.2%) had to be re-revised, 15 of them due to a recurrent infection and 2 due to aseptic reasons (mediolateral instability and a periprosthetic fracture). The median of the ROM (96°), SSS (8), KSS (87), WOMAC (9), SF-36 MCS (55) and SF-36 PCS (38) showed very satisfying results. CONCLUSION: No case of aseptic loosening was found in this large series of RTKA with extended bone defects using metaphyseal sleeve fixation. In this large retrospective series, it has been shown that this technique is an excellent treatment option for extended bone defects in RTKA surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Treatment of Metaphyseal Bone Defects Using Metaphyseal Sleeves.

BACKGROUND: Bone loss is a severe problem in septic revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The use of porous coated metaphyseal sleeves is a promising treatment option for metaphyseal bone defects. The currently published midterm results remain limited and no study has been focused exclusively on septic cases. Our aim was to determine the implant survivorship (with special focus on osseointegration) and the clinical and radiological midterm outcome of metaphyseal sleeve fixation in septic RTKA surgery (minimum follow-up of 2 years). METHODS: We performed a clinical and radiographic examination of 56 patients with a history of prosthetic joint infection who underwent 2-stage RTKA with the use of porous coated metaphyseal sleeves. These examinations included evaluation of the American Knee Society Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Short Form (SF-36) Health survey as well as radiographic measurement to determine whether successful osseointegration had been achieved. RESULTS: Nine patients (16%) had to be re-revised at the time of follow-up (mean, 5.3 years; range, 2-11.2), all due to reinfection. We did not encounter any cases of aseptic loosening. The mean range of motion (92°, SD ± 21°), subjective satisfaction score (7, SD ± 2), American Knee Society Score (76, SD ± 19), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (70, SD ± 20), SF-36 mental component summary (55, SD ± 14), and SF-36 physical component summary (35, SD ± 9) have shown satisfying results. CONCLUSION: Metaphyseal sleeves have shown very promising midterm results regarding clinical scores, osseointegration, and aseptic loosening. Our results are the first analyzing exclusively septic indications and indicate that they are a reliable fixation option in all bone defect types in septic RTKA patients.