Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Shoulder Arthroplasty

2015 ◽  
pp. 151-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parham Sendi ◽  
Beat K. Moor ◽  
Matthias A. Zumstein
2021 ◽  
pp. 213-229
Author(s):  
Parham Sendi ◽  
Andreas Marc Müller ◽  
Beat K. Moor ◽  
Matthias A. Zumstein

JBJS Reviews ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. e3-e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell E. Cooper ◽  
Nikunj N. Trivedi ◽  
Lakshmanan Sivasundaram ◽  
Michael R. Karns ◽  
James E. Voos ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Aibinder ◽  
Bradley S. Schoch ◽  
Robert H. Cofield ◽  
Joaquín Sánchez-Sotelo ◽  
John W. Sperling

2021 ◽  
pp. 175857322110190
Author(s):  
Taylor Paziuk ◽  
Ryan M Cox ◽  
Michael J Gutman ◽  
Alexander J Rondon ◽  
Thema Nicholson ◽  
...  

Background Diagnosis and treatment of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection is a difficult problem. The purpose of this study was to utilize the 2018 International Consensus Meeting definition of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection to categorize revision shoulder arthroplasty cases and determine variations in clinical presentation by presumed infection classification. Methods Retrospective review of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Likelihood of periprosthetic joint infection was determined based on International Consensus Meeting scoring. All patients classified as definitive or probable periprosthetic joint infection were classified as periprosthetic joint infection. All patients classified as possible or unlikely periprosthetic joint infection were classified as aseptic. The periprosthetic joint infection cohort was subsequently divided into culture-negative, non-virulent microorganism, and virulent microorganism cohorts based on culture results. Results Four hundred and sixty cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed. Eighty (17.4%) patients were diagnosed as definite or probable periprosthetic joint infection, of which 29 (36.3%), 39 (48.8%), and 12 (15.0%) were classified as virulent, non-virulent, or culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection, respectively. There were significant differences among periprosthetic joint infection subgroups with regard to preoperative C-reactive protein (p = 0.020), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.051), sinus tract presence (p = 0.008), and intraoperative purulence (p < 0.001). The total International Consensus Meeting criteria scores were also significantly different between the periprosthetic joint infection cohorts (p < 0.001). Discussion While the diagnosis of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection has improved with the advent of International Consensus Meeting criteria, there remain distinct differences between periprosthetic joint infection classifications that warrant further investigation to determine the accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment.


Author(s):  
Moritz Mederake ◽  
Ulf Krister Hofmann ◽  
Bernd Fink

Abstract Introduction A common reason for painful shoulder arthroplasties and revision surgery is a low-grade periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Diagnosing a low-grade infection is, however, a major diagnostic challenge. This applies even more to the shoulder, which differs from other large joints in terms of clinical features and microbiological spectrum. Aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of the synovial biopsy in the diagnostic workup of low-grade PJI of the shoulder. Materials and methods A retrospective evaluation was conducted on 56 patients receiving revision surgery on their shoulder arthroplasty. A standardized preoperative workup was performed comprising CRP value, leukocyte blood count, synovial fluid microbiological analyses and leukocyte count from joint aspiration, and five synovial biopsy samples for bacteriologic and histologic analysis obtained through an arthroscopic approach. During revision surgery, five samples of periprosthetic tissue were harvested for bacteriologic and histologic analyses. The MSIS-Criteria 2014 were used to evaluate the diagnostic results. Results In total, 15 of 56 revised prostheses turned out as PJI (27%). When applying our diagnostic workup, we obtained a sensitivity of 67% with a specificity of 95%. When performing a subgroup analysis on those patients that had received diagnostic biopsy, a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 83% could be achieved. With a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 83%, respectively, the biopsy is the single method with the highest diagnostic value. Conclusions The sensitivity of only 67% of our standard workup emphasizes the difficulty to adequately diagnose low-grade infections after shoulder arthroplasty. The excellent specificity of 95% ensures, however, that non-infected prostheses are not incorrectly explanted. This study highlights that synovial biopsy has a high diagnostic value and should be done prior to complex revision surgeries to raise sensitivity in diagnosing a PJI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document