Background Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) caused by pathogens, for which no biofilm-active antibiotics are available, are often referred to as difficult-to-treat (DTT). However, it is unclear whether the outcome of DTT PJI is worse than those of non-DTT PJI. We evaluated the outcome of DTT and non-DTT PJI in a prospective cohort treated with a two-stage exchange according to a standardized algorithm. Methods Patients with hip and knee PJI from 2013 to 2015 were prospectively included and followed up for ≥ 2 years. DTT PJI was defined as growth of microorganism(s) resistant to all available biofilm-active antibiotics. The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to compare the probability of infection-free survival between DTT and non-DTT PJI and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated. Results Among 163 PJI, 30 (18.4%) were classified as DTT and 133 (81.6%) as non-DTT. At a mean follow-up of 33 months (range 24–48 months), the overall treatment success was 82.8%. The infection-free survival rate at 2 years was 80% (95% CI 61–90%) for DTT PJI and 84% (95% CI 76–89%) for non-DTT PJI (p = 0.61). The following mean values were longer in DTT PJI than in non-DTT PJI: hospital stay (45 vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), prosthesis-free interval (89 vs. 58 days; p < 0.001) and duration of antimicrobial treatment (151 vs. 117 days; p = 0.003). Conclusions The outcome of DTT and non-DTT PJI was similar (80–84%), however, at the cost of longer hospital stay, longer prosthesis-free interval and longer antimicrobial treatment. It remains unclear whether patients undergoing two-stage exchange with a long interval need biofilm-active antibiotics. Further studies need to evaluate the outcome in patients treated with biofilm-active antibiotics undergoing short vs. long interval.

Biofilm-active antibiotics are suggested to improve the outcome in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, the type, dose and duration of antibiotic treatment is rarely specified and their impact on outcomes is unknown. In this prospective cohort study, the infection and functional outcome were compared in 131 patients with knee PJI treated with or without biofilm-active antibiotics. The infection and functional outcome were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier survival method to estimate the probability of infection-free survival; comparison between subgroups was performed by log-rank test. The influence of variables on the survival probability was analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression models. Functional outcome was evaluated by pain intensity and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Among the 131 patients, 55 (42%) were treated with biofilm-active antibiotics and 76 (58%) were treated with non-biofilm-active antibiotics. The median follow-up period was 3.7 years (range, 2.0–7.6 years), and the infection-free survival probability was 74% (95% CI 61–85%) after 1 year and 56% (95% CI 47–66%) after 2 years. Infection-free survival after 1 year was better for patients who received biofilm-active antibiotics compared with those who did not (83% vs. 70%; P = 0.040) and remained superior after 2 years (67% vs. 48%; P = 0.038). In addition, biofilm-active antibiotic treatment was associated with lower pain intensity (P = 0.006) and higher KOOS on all five subscales. In patients with knee PJI, biofilm-active antibiotic therapy was associated with better infection outcome, lower pain intensity and better joint function.

Aims To evaluate the histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples as a technique in the diagnosis of postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII). Methods This was a retrospective analysis. Patients who underwent revision spinal surgery at our institution were recruited for this study. PSII was diagnosed by clinical signs, histopathology, and microbiological examination of intraoperatively collected samples. Histopathology was defined as the gold standard. The sensitivity for histopathology was calculated. A total of 47 patients with PSII and at least one microbiological and histopathological sample were included in the study. Results PSII occurred in approximately 28% of the study population. Histopathology showed a sensitivity of 51.1% in the diagnosis of PSII. The most commonly found pathogens were Cutibacterium acnes and gram-positive staphylococci. Conclusion Histopathology has low sensitivity for detecting PSII. In particular, infections caused by low-virulence microorganisms are insufficiently detected by histopathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):899–903.

Abstract Purpose Biofilm-active antibiotics are suggested to improve the outcome of implant-associated infections; however, their role in infections after spinal instrumentation is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of patients with spinal implant-associated infections treated with and without biofilm-active antibiotics. Methods The probability of infection-free survival was estimated for treatment of spinal implant-associated infections with and without biofilm-active antibiotics using the Kaplan–Meier method; Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to identify factors associated with treatment failure. Results Among 93 included patients, early-onset infection was diagnosed in 61 (66%) and late-onset in 32 infections (34%). Thirty patients (32%) were treated with biofilm-active antibiotic therapy and 63 (68%) without it. The infection-free survival after a median follow-up of 53.7 months (range, 8 days-9.4 years) was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55–82%) after 1 year and 58% (95% CI 43–71%) after 2 years. The infection-free survival after 1 and 2 years was 94% (95% CI 85–99%) and 84% (95% CI 71–93%) for patients treated with biofilm-active antibiotics, respectively, and 57% (95% CI 39–80%) and 49% (95% CI 28–61%) for those treated without biofilm-active antibiotics, respectively (p = 0.009). Treatment with biofilm-active antibiotics (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.77), infection with Staphylococcus auras (HR, 2.19, 95% CI 1.04–4.62) and polymicrobial infection (HR, 2.44, 95% CI 1.09–6.04) were significantly associated with treatment outcome. Severe pain was observed more often in patients without biofilm-active antibiotic therapy (49% vs. 18%, p  = 0.027). Conclusion Treatment with biofilm-active antibiotics was associated with better treatment outcome and less postoperative pain intensity.