Role of Preoperative Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injections on Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Its Association With Preoperative Timing: A Single-Center Series of 5,909 Hips.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative intra-articular corticosteroid injections to the hip joint increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to determine the relationship between preoperative timing of intra-articular corticosteroid injections and PJI risk following THA using data from a single-center hospital. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent a THA between 2014 and 2020. Medical records were checked for intra-articular corticosteroid injections and PJI within 1 year of surgery. Patients were categorized into groups based on whether they received "no injection" or "injection 0 to 3 months," "3 to 6 months," and "> 6 months prior to THA." Hazard ratios (HRs) for these groups were calculated using multivariate Cox regression analysis, correcting for potential confounders, and presented with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]. RESULTS: In total, 4,507 patients (5,909 THAs) were identified. A total of 1,581 patients (27%) received an injection prior to THA. Without considering the timing factor, no increased risk for PJI following an intra-articular injection was noted (P = .19). Comparing the specified groups using multivariate analysis, corticosteroid injection within 3 months of THA showed an increased risk of PJI (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 5.87, P = .018), but this effect was not observed for the "injection 3 to 6 months" group (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.08, P = .264). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injections administered up to 3 months prior to THA increased the risk of PJI within 1 year after THA, with an HR of 2.63; however, injections between 3 and 6 months before surgery did not have a significantly higher infection rate.

The Rise of the Direct Anterior Approach: Trends, Learning Curves, and Patient Characteristics of 63,182 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND: The use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has steadily increased in the Netherlands since 2007. The aim of this study was to outline how the DAA has been implemented in the Netherlands. Moreover, we investigated the learning curve of the DAA at a hospital level, and explored patient characteristics of the DAA compared with other approaches and during the learning phase after implementing the DAA. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we included all primary THAs between 2007 and 2020 (n = 342,473) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. For hospitals implementing the DAA (n > 20), patients were categorized in 4 experience groups using the date of surgery: 1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150, or > 150. Subsequently, data from different hospitals were pooled and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Adjusted revision rates were calculated using mixed Cox proportional hazard models (frailty). RESULTS: The use of the DAA gradually rose from 0.2% in 2007 to 41% of all primary THAs in 2020. A total of 64 (56%) hospitals implemented the DAA. However, not all hospitals continued using this approach. After implementation, the 5-year survival rate for the first 50 procedures was significantly lower (96% confidence interval [CI] 95.8 to 97.2) compared to >150 procedures (98% CI 97.7 to 98.1). Multivariable Cox hazard analyses demonstrated a higher risk of revision during the first 50 procedures compared with >150 procedures (hazard ratio 1.6, CI 1.3 to 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DAA for primary THA significantly increased. For hospitals implementing DAA, a considerable learning curve with increased revision risk was seen.

Role of preoperative posterior tilt on the outcomes of internal fixation of non-displaced femoral neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There has been an increased interest in the role of preoperative posterior tilt, as measured on lateral radiographs, on the outcomes of internal fixation of non-displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF). The goal was to assess the available evidence for this in the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were searched on June 10th, 2020 for studies assessing the role of posterior tilt on outcomes of internal fixation of non-displaced FNF. Primary outcomes were non-union and fixation failure, avascular necrosis (AVN), treatment failure, and reoperation (excluding symptomatic hardware removal). Outcomes were reported in Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals [CI]. RESULTS: Fourteen studies and 3729 patients were included (mean age 76 years, 72% female, mean follow-up 25 months). Moderate evidence was noted for the following: patients with greater preoperative posterior tilt had an increased risk of non-union and fixation failure (OR 2.4 [1.3 - 4.3]; p = 0.006), no increased risk of AVN (p = 0.550), an increased risk of treatment failure (OR 6.0 [2.2 - 15.9]; p<0.001) and reoperation (OR 2.5 [1.4 - 4.4]; p = 0.002). Furthermore, a greater preoperative tilt of 9.0° [4.1° - 13.9°] for treatment failure and 6.1° [3.7° - 8.5°] (p<0.001) for reoperation were noted in the unsuccessfully treated groups when compared to the successfully treated groups. Four studies found a threshold for posterior tilt ranging from 7° to 20° CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that patients with non-displaced FNF and greater tilt have an increased risk of unsuccessful outcomes following internal fixation. Older patients with a preoperative tilt of ≥20° might benefit from arthroplasty surgery, although studies assessing the optimal threshold are needed.

Does the Alpha Defensin ELISA Test Perform Better Than the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test for PJI Diagnosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty is a serious complication that causes severe morbidity and adds a major financial burden to the healthcare system. Although there is plenty of research on the alpha-defensin (AD) test, a meta-analysis consisting of only prospective studies investigating AD's diagnostic efficacy has not been performed. Additionally, some important subgroups such as THA and TKA have not been separately analyzed, particularly regarding two commonly used versions of the AD test, the laboratory-based (ELISA) and lateral-flow (LF). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the AD ELISA test perform better in the detection of PJI than the AD LF test, in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity, when including prospective studies only? (2) Are there differences in sensitivity or specificity when using AD ELISA and AD LF tests for PJI diagnosis of THA or TKA PJI separately? METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included prospective studies describing the use of either AD test in the workup of pain after total joint arthroplasty (primary or revision, but not after resection arthroplasty). Fifteen studies (AD ELISA: 4; AD LF: 11) were included, with 1592 procedures. Subgroup data on THA and TKA could be retrieved for 1163 procedures (ELISA THA: 123; LF THA: 257; ELISA TKA: 228; LF TKA: 555). Studies not describing THA or TKA, those not using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria as the standard for determining the presence or absence of PJI, those not clearly reporting data for the AD test for the total cohort, and those describing data published in another study were excluded. Studies were not excluded based on follow-up duration; the MSIS criteria could be used within a few weeks, when test results were available. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. Study quality was generally good. The most frequent sources of bias were related to patient selection (such as unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria) and flow and timing (uncertainty in place and time of aspiration, for example). Heterogeneity was moderate to high; a bivariate random-effects model therefore was used. To answer both research questions, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for AD ELISA and LF test groups and THA and TKA subgroups, and were compared using z-test statistics and meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: No differences were found between the AD ELISA and the AD LF for PJI diagnosis in the pooled cohorts (THA and TKA combined), in terms of sensitivity (90% versus 86%; p = 0.43) and specificity (97% versus 96%; p = 0.39). Differences in sensitivity for PJI diagnosis were found between the THA and TKA groups for the AD ELISA test (70% versus 94%; p = 0.008); pooled AD LF test sensitivity did not differ between THA and TKA (80% versus 87%; p = 0.20). No differences in specificity were found in either subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Both the AD ELISA and AD LF test can be used in clinical practice because both have high sensitivity and very high specificity for PJI diagnosis. The lower sensitivity found for diagnosis of PJI in THA for the AD ELISA test must be carefully interpreted because the pooled data were heterogenous and only two studies for this group were included. Future research should analyze TKAs and THAs separately to confirm or disprove this finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II diagnostic study.

Good accuracy of the alpha-defensin lateral flow test for hip periprosthetic joint infection: A pilot study in a retrospective cohort of 52 patients.

BACKGROUND: The alpha-defensin lateral flow (ADLF) test is a new diagnostic tool for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Test accuracy for combined cohorts of hip and knee PJI has been reported to be good. AIM: To assess the accuracy of the ADLF test for hip PJI, and to compare three different diagnostic criteria for PJI. METHODS: A cohort of 52 patients was identified, with a painful or poorly functioning total hip- or hemi-arthroplasty, that underwent aspiration and a subsequent ADLF test. PJI was diagnosed with Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Furthermore, test specifics were compared with the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) and 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJI. RESULTS: Using MSIS criteria, sensitivity was 100% (CI: 54%-100%) and specificity was 89% (CI: 76%-96%). Six true positives and 5 false positives were found, including one case of metallosis. Using EBJIS criteria, more PJIs were found (11 vs 6), sensitivity was lower (71%, CI: 42%-92%) and specificity was higher (97%, CI: 86%-100%), with 4 false negatives and one false positive result. Using 2018 ICM criteria, sensitivity was 91% (62%-100%) and specificity 100% (91%-100%). The results in this cohort are comparable to previous studies. CONCLUSION: Overall test accuracy of the ADLF test was good in this cohort, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 89%. Using different PJI definition criteria, sensitivity and specificity changed slightly but overall accuracy remained around 90%. Using the ADLF test in metallosis cases can result in false positive results and should be performed with caution.

Prosthetic joint-associated infections treated with DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention): analysis of risk factors and local antibiotic carriers in 91 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For prosthetic joint-associated infection (PJI), a regimen of debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis (DAIR) is generally accepted for acute infections. Various risk factors associated with treatment success have been described. The use of local antibiotic carriers (beads and sponges) is relatively unknown. We retrospectively analyzed risk factors in a cohort of patients from 3 hospitals, treated with DAIR for PJI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 91 patients treated with DAIR for hip or knee PJI in 3 Dutch centers between 2004 and 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up was 3 years. Treatment success was defined as absence of infection after 2 years, with retention of the prosthesis and without the use of suppressive antibiotics. RESULTS: 60 patients (66%) were free of infection at follow-up. Factors associated with treatment failure were: a history of rheumatoid arthritis, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), ESR at presentation above 60 mm/h, and infection caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Symptom duration of less than 1 week was associated with treatment success. The use of gentamicin sponges was statistically significantly higher in the success group, and the use of beads was higher in the failure group in the univariate analysis, but these differences did not reach significance in the logistic regression analysis. Less surgical procedures were performed in the group treated with sponges than in the group treated with beads. INTERPRETATION: In the presence of rheumatoid arthritis, duration of symptoms of more than 1 week, ESR above 60 mm/h, late infection (> 2 years after arthroplasty), and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus PJI, the chances of successful DAIR treatment decrease, and other treatment methods should be considered.