Orthopedic Infectious Diseases Online Library

Your search

In authors or contributors
  • PURPOSE: To investigate if serum inflammatory markers or nuclear imaging can accurately diagnose a chronic spinal instrumentation infection (SII) prior to surgery. METHODS: All patients who underwent revision of spinal instrumentation after a scoliosis correction between 2017 and 2019, were retrospectively evaluated. The diagnostic accuracy of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and Technetium-99m-methylene diphosphonate (99mTc-MDP) 3-phase bone scintigraphy (TPBS) to diagnose infection were studied. Patients with an acute infection or inadequate culture sampling were excluded. SII was diagnosed if ≥ 2 of the same microorganism(s) were isolated from intra-operative tissue cultures. RESULTS: 30 patients were included. The indication for revision surgery was pseudoarthrosis in the majority of patients (n = 15). 22 patients (73%) were diagnosed with SII. In all infected cases, Cutibacterium acnes was isolated, including 5 cases with a polymicrobial infection. The majority of patients had low inflammatory parameters preoperatively. For CRP > 10.0 mg/L, the sensitivity was 9.1% and specificity 100%; for ESR > 30 mm/h, the sensitivity was 9.1% and specificity 100%. The diagnostic accuracy for nuclear imaging was 64% for the FDG-PET/CT and 67% for the TPBS to diagnose infection. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SII in patients undergoing revision spinal surgery is high, with Cutibacterium acnes as the main pathogen. No diagnostic tests could be identified that could accurately diagnose or exclude SII prior to surgery. Future studies should aim to find more sensitive diagnostic modalities to detect low-grade inflammation.

  • Background The success of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on the presence of a mature biofilm. At what time point DAIR should be disrecommended is unknown. This multicenter study evaluated the outcome of DAIR in relation to the time after index arthroplasty. Methods We retrospectively evaluated PJIs occurring within 90 days after surgery and treated with DAIR. Patients with bacteremia, arthroscopic debridements, and a follow-up <1 year were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as (1) any further surgical procedure related to infection; (2) PJI-related death; or (3) use of long-term suppressive antibiotics. Results We included 769 patients. Treatment failure occurred in 294 patients (38%) and was similar between time intervals from index arthroplasty to DAIR: the failure rate for Week 1–2 was 42% (95/226), the rate for Week 3–4 was 38% (143/378), the rate for Week 5–6 was 29% (29/100), and the rate for Week 7–12 was 42% (27/65). An exchange of modular components was performed to a lesser extent in the early post-surgical course compared with the late course (41% vs 63%, respectively; P < .001). The causative microorganisms, comorbidities, and durations of symptoms were comparable between time intervals. Conclusions DAIR is a viable option in patients with early PJI presenting more than 4 weeks after index surgery, as long as DAIR is performed within at least 1 week after the onset of symptoms and modular components can be exchanged.

Last update from database: 11/10/24, 4:26 PM (UTC)