In 10% of the presumed aseptic hip or knee revisions, a low-grade infection is unexpectedly diagnosed based on the tissue samples taken during revision. Extended antimicrobial prophylaxis can possibly reduce the failure rate in cases of unexpected PJI, because the prophylaxis can be considered as early empiric treatment. In this randomized controlled study we analysed whether extended antimicrobial prophylaxis compared to a single dose is beneficial to improve the outcome of treatment in unexpected PJI in revision arthroplasty. This study was nested in a randomized clinical trial comparing single-dose cefazolin with prolonged prophylaxis (15 doses of cefazolin over 5 days) for revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. For this analysis, patients were included if an unsuspected PJI (defined as ≥2 positive intraoperative tissue samples with the same microorganism) was diagnosed. PJI treatment consisted of 12 weeks of a rifampicin-based regimen in Staphylococcal PJI, without removal of the prosthesis. We examined Infection characteristics and success of treatment after one year, defined as the absence of signs or treatment for PJI during follow-up.Aim
Method
Bone and joint infection requires antimicrobial treatment for 6 to 12 weeks. When patients are well prepared and instructed regarding their therapy, they are more likely to have less side effects and improved compliance. Although side effects are common, this coaching is often not routinely performed when oral treatment is given. We developed a monitoring and guidance program for our outpatients who are on long term antimicrobial therapy, in which we can early signal side effects and treatment failure and coach the patients in their journey of infection treatment. In our tertiary referral centre for orthopaedic infections, we started the outpatient monitoring of antimicrobial treatment (OMAT)- team for patients who will receive antimicrobial therapy for >2 weeks. Before discharge, our trained nurse gives instruction to the patient. Within 3 days after hospital discharge the patient is contacted by phone to, if necessary, clarify ambiguities in monitoring set up. During this contact, the nurse checks for side effects, addresses logistic problems regarding laboratory monitoring or future appointments and coaches patients for other questions. The patient is instructed how to recognize and who to contact in case of red flags and problems possibly related to the treatment. This is repeated after every laboratory check-up. Supervision is performed by an infectious disease specialist in close collaboration with the patient's surgeon.Aim
Method
Treatment recommendations for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) include surgical debridement, antibiotic therapy or staged revision. In surgical related foot and ankle infections (SR-FAI), implant removal will lead to instability. Debridement is difficult because the implant is outside the joint. Recommendations regarding PJI treatment can therefore not be extrapolated to the treatment of SR-FAI. We searched PubMed for the etiology and treatment of SR-FAI, taken into account the time of occurrence, causative microorganisms and surgical treatment options. We integrated this knowledge into a treatment algorithm for SR-FAI.Aim
Method
Failed consolidation (nonunion) after foot and ankle arthrodesis is a major complication, which can lead to additional revision arthrodesis with increased risk of morbidity. Multiple factors can contribute to developing a nonunion, including a low-grade infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of unsuspected low-grade infection in revision arthrodesis for nonunions after foot and ankle arthrodesis. We also analyzed the outcome of unsuspected low-grade infections. We conducted a retrospective study in The Sint Maartenskliniek, The Netherlands. All patients who underwent revision arthrodesis for assumed aseptic nonunion after foot and ankle arthrodesis between January 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients were excluded if <5 tissue samples were obtained during revision arthrodesis or if they were treated for infection after the index arthrodesis. For the included patients, at least 5 tissue samples for culture were taken during the revision arthrodesis. The causative microorganisms, antibiotic susceptibility and treatment were assessed. An unsuspected infection was defined as ≥2 positive cultures with phenotypical identical microorganisms. Success was defined as union on imaging during clinical follow-up, without signs of persistent infection after finishing the antibiotic treatment.Aim
Method
Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed.Aims
Methods
Success rate of debridement, antimicrobial and implant retention (DAIR) in high suspicion of early PJI after primary arthroplasty is 70–80%. No studies have been performed focusing on outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty of the hip (THA) or knee (TKA). The aim of this study is to investigate the outcome of DAIR in suspected early PJI after revision THA or TKA and to identify risk factors for failure. In this retrospective study, we identified early DAIRs after revision THA or TKA performed between January 2012 and August 2019. All patients received empirical antibiotics directly after the DAIR procedure. Antimicrobial treatment was adjusted to the tissue culture results. Success was defined as: 1) implant retention; 2) no repeated revision arthroplasty or supervised neglect after treatment; 3) no persistent or recurrent PJI after treatment and no administration of suppressive antimicrobial therapy; 4) survival of the patient. Infection free success was defined as: 1) no persistent or recurrent PJI after treatment; 2) no administration of suppressive antimicrobial therapy.Aim
Method
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication of total joint arthroplasty of hip (THA) or knee (TKA). Debridement, antibiotic treatment, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective treatment of early PJI. In the Netherlands, cefazolin resistance in early PJI after primary arthroplasty is low. Little is known about causative micro-organisms and resistance patterns in PJI after revision arthroplasty. No recommendations for empirical treatment are described in the current guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics of PJI after revision arthroplasty and to evaluate whether the used empirical treatment regimens are adequate, based on microbiology data. In this retrospective study we included patients with early PJI after aseptic revision of THA or TKA, treated with DAIR between 2012 and 2020. Success rate was defined as implant retention and no persistent or recurrent infection during one year follow-up.Aim
Method
