Posts filed under ‘Infecciones relacionadas a prótesis’

Antibiotic sensitivities of coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: does this differ if patients meet the International Consensus Meeting Criteria?

Infect Drug Resist. 2018 Apr 13;11:539-546.

De Vecchi E1, George DA2, Romanò CL3, Pregliasco FE4,5, Mattina R6, Drago L1,4.



Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are the main pathogens responsible for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). As normal inhabitants of human skin, it is often difficult to define if they are contaminants, or if they have an active role in initiating infection. This study aims to evaluate differences in CoNS organisms (Staphylococcus hominis, Staphylococcus capitis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Staphylococcus warneri) and Staphylococcus aureus in terms of isolation rate and antimicrobial susceptibility from patients who met the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJIs and those who did not.


Staphylococci isolates from January 2014 to December 2015 retrieved from patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty were classified in accordance with criteria established by the ICM of Philadelphia.


As per the consensus classification, 50 CoNS and 39 S. aureus infections were recognized as pathogens, while 16 CoNS and four S. aureus were considered as contaminants. Frequency of isolation of S. aureus was significantly higher in infected patients than in those without infection, while no significant differences were observed among CoNS. Resistance to levofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and rifampicin was significantly more frequent in S. haemolyticus than in the other species, as well as resistance to erythromycin and gentamicin in S. hominis. In comparison to S. aureus, CoNS were significantly more resistant to daptomycin and gentamicin and more susceptible to rifampicin.


CoNS, other than Staphylococcus epidermidis, are frequently isolated from PJIs, and their infective role and antimicrobial susceptibility need to be assessed on an individual patient basis. S. haemolyticus seems to emerge as responsible for PJI in a large volume of patients, and its role needs to be further investigated, also considering its pattern of resistance.




June 10, 2018 at 11:59 am

REVIEW – Histopathology in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: When Will the Morphomolecular Diagnosis Be a Reality?

Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 13;2018:1412701.

Bori G1, McNally MA2, Athanasou N2.


The presence of a polymorphonuclear neutrophil infiltrate in periprosthetic tissues has been shown to correlate closely with the diagnosis of septic implant failure. The histological criterion considered by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society to be diagnostic of periprosthetic joint infection is “greater than five neutrophils per high-power field in five high-power fields observed from histologic analysis of periprosthetic tissue at ×400 magnification.” Surgeons and pathologists should be aware of the qualifications introduced by different authors during the last years in the histological techniques, samples for histological study, cutoffs used for the diagnosis of infection, and types of patients studied. Recently, immunohistochemistry and histochemistry studies have appeared which suggest that the cutoff point of five polymorphonuclear neutrophils in five high-power fields is too high for the diagnosis of many periprosthetic joint infections. Therefore, morphomolecular techniques could help in the future to achieve a more reliable histological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.



June 10, 2018 at 11:56 am

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

The Lancet June 2, 2018 V.391 N.10136 P.2225–2235

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Prof Damian R Griffin, MPhil’, Edward J Dickenson, MBChB, Peter D H Wall, PhD, Felix Achana, PhD, Prof Jenny L Donovan, PhD, James Griffin, MSc, Rachel Hobson, BA, Prof Charles E Hutchinson, MD, Marcus Jepson, PhD, Nick R Parsons, PhD, Prof Stavros Petrou, PhD, Alba Realpe, PhD, Joanna Smith, Prof Nadine E Foster, DPhil on behalf of the UK show FASHIoN Study Group†


Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.


UK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment.


Between July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7–12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of these (58 [42%] vs 69 [47%]). There were seven serious adverse events reported by participating hospitals. Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment, and the one in the personalised hip therapy group was not. There were no treatment-related deaths, but one patient in the hip arthroscopy group developed a hip joint infection after surgery.


Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement than did personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant. Further follow-up will reveal whether the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether it is cost effective in the long term.


The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute of Health Research.




The Lancet June 2, 2018 V.391 N.10136

COMMENT – Hip arthroscopy: an evidence-based approach

Karen K Briggs, Ioanna K Bolia

It started with the knee, then the shoulder, then the ankle, and now it is the hips’ turn. Instead of open surgery, arthroscopic surgery of the hip joint can be used to repair structural damage. Arthroscopic surgery is considered to be less invasive than an open procedure, and the intact tissues are minimally exposed and not traumatised. This approach can lead to quicker recovery and early return to function and activity, with fewer complications.1 For the hip, arthroscopy spares the cutting of the ligamentum teres and reduces damage to the capsular structures by avoiding dislocation. The literature has also supported the idea of hip arthroscopy as a less invasive method of repairing the damage caused by femoroacetabular impingement.2, 3 Femoroacetabular impingement, originally described by Ganz and colleagues,4 is abnormal bony morphology of the femoral head–neck junction, rim of the acetabulum, or both. This abnormal bone results in impingement and decreased space within the joint, causing damage to the intra-articular structures.



June 1, 2018 at 9:03 am

Biofilm and the Role of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Joint Infections.

Open Orthop J. November 30, 2016 V.10 P.636-645.

Mirza YH1, Tansey R1, Sukeik M2, Shaath M3, Haddad FS1.

Author information

1 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University of College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, NW1 2BU, London, United Kingdom.

2 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB, United Kingdom.

3 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Delaunay’s Road, Crumpsall, M8 5RB, United Kingdom.


An increasing demand for lower limb arthroplasty will lead to a proportionate increase in the need for revision surgery. A notable proportion of revision surgery is secondary to periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Diagnosing and eradicating PJI can form a very difficult challenge. An important cause of PJI is the formation of a bacterial biofilm on the implant surface. Our review article seeks to describe biofilms; their definitions and formation, common causative bacteria, prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic therapy.


May 31, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Predicting lower limb periprosthetic joint infections: A review of risk factors and their classification.

World J Orthop. May 18, 2017 V.8 N.5 P.400-411.

George DA1, Drago L1, Scarponi S1, Gallazzi E1, Haddad FS1, Romano CL1.

Author information

1 David A George, Fares S Haddad, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals, London NW1 2BU, United Kingdom.



To undertook a systematic review to determine factors that increase a patient’s risk of developing lower limb periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).


This systematic review included full-text studies that reviewed risk factors of developing either a hip or knee PJI following a primary arthroplasty published from January 1998 to November 2016. A variety of keywords were used to identify studies through international databases referencing hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, infection, and risk factors. Studies were only included if they included greater than 20 patients in their study cohort, and there was clear documentation of the statistical parameter used; specifically P-value, hazard ratio, relative risk, or/and odds ratio (OR). Furthermore a quality assessment criteria for the individual studies was undertaken to evaluate the presence of record and reporting bias.


Twenty-seven original studies reviewing risk factors relating to primary total hip and knee arthroplasty infections were included. Four studies (14.8%) reviewed PJI of the hip, 3 (11.21%) of the knee, and 20 (74.1%) reviewed both joints. Nineteen studies (70.4%) were retrospective and 8 (29.6%) prospective. Record bias was identified in the majority of studies (66.7%). The definition of PJI varied amongst the studies but there was a general consensus to define infection by previously validated methods. The most significant risks were the use of preoperative high dose steroids (OR = 21.0, 95%CI: 3.5-127.2, P < 0.001), a BMI above 50 (OR = 18.3, P < 0.001), tobacco use (OR = 12.76, 95%CI: 2.47-66.16, P = 0.017), body mass index below 20 (OR = 6.00, 95%CI: 1.2-30.9, P = 0.033), diabetes (OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 1.77-16.97, P = 0.003), and coronary artery disease (OR = 5.10, 95%CI: 1.3-19.8, P = 0.017).


We have highlighted the need for the provider to optimise modifiable risk factors, and develop strategies to limit the impact of non-modifiable factors.


May 31, 2018 at 12:56 pm

The Effect of Preoperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis on Intraoperative Culture Results in Patients with a Suspected or Confirmed Prosthetic Joint Infection: a Systematic Review.

J Clin Microbiol. September 2017 V.55 N.9 P.2765-2774.

Wouthuyzen-Bakker M1, Benito N2, Soriano A3.

Author information

1 Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

2 Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

3 Service of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.


Obtaining reliable cultures during revision arthroplasty is important to adequately diagnose and treat a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The influence of antimicrobial prophylaxis on culture results remains unclear. Since withholding prophylaxis increases the risk for surgical site infections, clarification on this topic is critical. A systematic review was performed with the following research question: in patients who undergo revision surgery of a prosthetic joint, does preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis affect the culture yield of intraoperative samples in comparison with nonpreoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis? Seven articles were included in the final analysis. In most studies, standard diagnostic culture techniques were used. In patients with a PJI, pooled analysis showed a culture yield of 88% (145/165) in the prophylaxis group versus 95% (344/362) in the nonprophylaxis group (P = 0.004). Subanalysis of patients with chronic PJIs showed positive cultures in 88% (78/89) versus 91% (52/57), respectively (P = 0.59). In patients with a suspected chronic infection, a maximum difference of 4% in culture yield between the prophylaxis and nonprophylaxis groups was observed. With the use of standard culture techniques, antimicrobial prophylaxis seems to affect cultures in a minority of patients. Along with the known risk of surgical site infections due to inadequate timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis, we discourage the postponement of prophylaxis until tissue samples are obtained in revision surgery. Future studies are necessary to conclude whether the small percentage of false-negative cultures after prophylaxis can be further reduced with the use of more-sensitive culture techniques, like sonication.


May 31, 2018 at 12:54 pm

Is there an association between periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels?

Int Orthop. July 2014 V.38 N.7 P.1499-504.  doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2338-6.

Maier GS1, Horas K, Seeger JB, Roth KE, Kurth AA, Maus U.

Author information

1 Department of Trauma Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany,



Vitamin D is increasingly being recognized as an important mediator of immune function and may have a preventive role in the pathogenesis of periprosthetic joint infection. To the best of our knowledge, no other study has examined possible associations between periprosthetic joint infection and vitamin D deficiency. We investigated the rate of vitamin D deficiency in patients treated for periprosthetic joint infection and whether vitamin D deficiency is independent of other risk factors for vitamin D deficiency in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.


Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels of every patient scheduled to receive a total prosthesis either of the hip, knee, or shoulder in the orthopaedic department of the Johannes-Guttenberg-University Hospital in Mainz, Germany (109 patients), were measured after admission. Furthermore, serum 25OHD levels were measured for every patient presenting with periprosthetic joint infection (n = 50) or aseptic loosening of the prosthesis (n = 31) scheduled to undergo revision surgery. The prevalence of normal (> 30 ng/ml), insufficient (20-30 ng/ml), and deficient (<20 ng/ml) 25OHD levels was determined.


All tested patient subgroups showed low vitamin D levels. Statistical analysis found no significant difference in vitamin D levels comparing patients with prosthesis and patients with aseptic prosthesis loosening (p = 0.58). Significant differences in 25OHD levels were found comparing patients with periprosthetic joint infection and patients scheduled for primary arthroplasty (p < 0.001). In addition, we found a significant difference (p < 0,001) in 25OHD levels of patients with periprosthetic joint infection compared with patients with aseptic prosthesis loosening.


We found a high frequency of vitamin D deficiency in patients being treated by primary arthroplasty and those with aseptic joint prosthetic loosening and periprosthetic joint infection. Vitamin D deficiency was severe in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.



May 29, 2018 at 11:06 am

Older Posts


June 2018
« May    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category