Narrow Results

Introduction: One of the most challenging and serious complications associated with total joint arthroplasty is prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Advancements in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of PJI seem promising. Accurate identification of the causal pathogen is a key factor for successful treatment and also for choosing antibiotic treatment. This study was aimed to evaluate the prevalence of PJI and distribution of causative pathogen using microbiological culture and pathological examination.

Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted by collecting data from our center registry from 2018 to 2020. The inclusion criteria of this study were patients diagnosed with hip or knee PJI based on the diagnostic criteria for PJI. The exclusion criteria were incomplete microbiology data which were either refusal to participate or loss of contact. The data extracted from medical records are demographic data such as age, sex, and microbiology and pathological examination data.

Results: A total of 1359 total hip/ knee arthroplasty surgeries were performed during the years 2018–2020. Among them, 1031 were total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 321 were total hip arthroplasties (THA). During the same period, a total of 52 patients with PJI were treated at our center. There were 31 knee PJI cases (59.61%) and 21 were hip PJI cases (40.38%). Microbiology culture and pathologic anatomy results showed gram positive Staphylococcus sp bacteria, which was the common causal pathogen of PJI. Negative culture results were found in 10/52 (19.23%) of cases.

Conclusions:Staphylococcus sp was the most common causal pathogen of Hip/ Knee PJI in our center. Relatively high rate of culture-negative PJI was observed in this study, further strategies are needed to increase the rate of causal pathogen isolation in hip/ knee PJI cases in our center.

Background: Dual mobility total joint arthroplasty is gaining popularity for trapeziometacarpal joint (TMCJ) arthritis, with evolving indications, surgical technique and rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to obtain detailed insight into the variations in indications, surgical technique and rehabilitation for TMCJ arthroplasty with dual mobility implants, across a large international cohort of surgeons. The secondary aim was to analyse if there were differences in TMCJ arthroplasty between highly and less experienced surgeons.

Methods: An anonymised online survey was developed and distributed to the international hand surgery community of surgeons performing TMCJ arthroplasty. Responses were summarised, and a sub-analysis comparing indications, contra-indications, surgical technique, implant placement, rehabilitation and complications between highly and less experienced surgeons was performed.

Results: Of the 203 included respondents, 59 were considered highly experienced. Most respondents perform TMCJ arthroplasty under regional anaesthesia (84%), via a dorsolateral approach (78%) and with image-guidance for cup placement (84%). However, there is considerable variation in handling of scaphotrapeziotrapezoidal (STT) arthritis, cup positioning landmarks, postoperative immobilisation, first extensor compartment release and revision techniques. Highly experienced surgeons performed TMCJ arthroplasty for a larger proportion of their patients undergoing surgery for TMCJ arthritis, and a trapezium smaller than 8 mm or STT-OA was less frequently considered a contra-indication. Highly experienced surgeons preferred freehand osteotomy of the metacarpal and allowed office workers to return to work earlier.

Conclusions: This survey shows that there is considerable variation in (contra)indications, surgical technique and rehabilitation amongst surgeons performing TMCJ arthroplasty, but only a few differences between highly and less experienced surgeons were identified. This data provides a reference for surgeons who want to familiarise themselves with increasingly popular procedure and may help surgeons already performing TMCJ arthroplasty to identify potential topics for future research to optimise its outcome.

Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic)