Positive Cultures Can Be Safely Ignored in Revision Arthroplasty Patients That Do Not Meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria

BackgroundDuring aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), one or more cultures may occasionally isolate an organism. The hypothesis of this study was that in a portion of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure, culture may isolate an organism(s) that can be left untreated.MethodsAll patients undergoing revision TJA from 2000 to 2017 at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized as aseptic if they were appropriately investigated preoperatively and did not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. In the aseptic revision cohort, patients with a single positive culture or multiple cultures positive for different organisms (“organism-positive”) and patients who had negative intraoperative cultures (“organism-negative”) were compared based on demographics, comorbidities, operative details, subsequent reoperations, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).ResultsIn total, 3,234 International Consensus Meeting–negative aseptic revision TJAs were included, of which 215 patients (6.6%) were organism-positive, 196 (91.2%) had a single positive culture, and 19 (8.8%) were positive for 2 or more distinct organisms (ie, polymicrobial). The most prevalent organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (37.5%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (9.6%), and Cutibacterium acnes (8.0%). Demographics and operative details were comparable between the groups. Using multiple regressions there was no association between culture positivity and the rate of reoperation or PJI.ConclusionIsolation of organisms by culture in patients undergoing revision for aseptic failure was not uncommon. As long as these patients were appropriately investigated preoperatively and PJI was excluded, these findings suggest that culture results may be ignored without subjecting patients to additional antimicrobial treatment.     

The proteome microenvironment determines the protective effect of preconditioning in cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury

1. Download high-res image (341KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

Surgical Helmets Used During Total Joint Arthroplasty Harbor Common Pathogens: A Cautionary Note

BackgroundThe use of personal-protection surgical helmet/hood systems is now a part of the standard surgical attire during arthroplasty in North America. There are no protocols for the disinfection of these helmets.MethodsThis is a prospective, single-center, observational study. Helmets worn by 44 members of the surgical team and foreheads of 44 corresponding surgical personnel were swabbed at three distinct time points. In addition, 16 helmets were treated with hypochlorite spray to determine if pathogens could be eliminated. Swabs obtained were processed for culture and next-generation sequencing (NGS).ResultsOf the 132 helmet samples, 97 (73%) yielded bacteria on culture and 94 (71%) had evidence of bacterial–deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) on NGS. Of the swabs sent for bacterial identification at the three time points, at least one from each helmet was positive for a pathogen(s). Of the 132 forehead samples, 124 (93%) yielded bacteria on culture and 103 (78%) had evidence of bacterial-DNA on NGS. The most commonly identified organism from helmets was Cutibacterium acnes (86/132) on NGS and Staphylococcus epidermidis (47/132) on culture. The most commonly identified organism from the foreheads of surgical personnel was Cutibacterium acnes (100/132) on NGS and Staphylococcus epidermidis (70/132) on culture. Sanitization of helmets was totally effective; no swabs taken the following morning for culture and NGS identified any bacteria.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that surgical helmets worn during orthopedic procedures are contaminated with common pathogens that can potentially cause surgical site infections. The findings of this study should at the minimum compel us to develop protocols for the disinfection of these helmets.     

The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.MethodsTwo-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.ResultsA total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.ConclusionPatellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Relationship between EMG-detected and ultrasound-detected fasciculations in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A prospective cohort study

ObjectivesFasciculation potentials (FP) are an important consideration in the electrophysiological diagnosis of ALS. Muscle ultrasonography (MUS) has a higher sensitivity in detecting fasciculations than electromyography (EMG), while in some cases, it is unable to detect EMG-detected fasciculations. We aimed to investigate the differences of FP between the muscles with and without MUS-detected fasciculations (MUS-fas).MethodsThirty-one consecutive patients with sporadic ALS were prospectively recruited and in those, both needle EMG and MUS were performed. Analyses of the amplitude, duration, and number of phases of EMG-detected FPs were performed for seven muscles per patient, and results were compared between the muscles with and without MUS-fas in the total cohort.ResultsThe mean amplitude and phase number of FP were significantly lower in patients with EMG-detected FP alone (0.39 ± 0.25 mV and 3.21 ± 0.88, respectively) than in those with both FP and MUS-fas (1.22 ± 0.92 mV and 3.74 ± 1.39, respectively; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.017, Welch’s t-test).ConclusionSmall FP may be undetectable with MUS. MUS cannot replace EMG in the diagnostic approach for ALS.SignificanceClinicians should use a combination of EMG and MUS for the detection and quantitative analysis of fasciculation in ALS.     

Preparing IR for COVID-19: The Singapore Experience

This paper describes country-wide special measures undertaken for interventional radiology staff during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although each interventional radiology service around the world faces unique challenges, the principles outlined in this article will be useful when designing or strengthening individual practices and integrating them within wider hospital and national measures. Moving beyond the current outbreak, these measures will be useful for any future infectious diseases which are likely to arise.     

Emerging Viral Infections Causing Anterior Uveitis

Purpose: To review the systemic and ocular manifestations of specific emergent viral infectious diseases relevant to the ophthalmologist with particular emphasis on anterior uveitis

Methods: Review of literature.

Results: Arboviral diseases are among the most important emergent and resurgent human infections, occurring mostly in tropical and subtropical zones, but appearing in virtually all regions of the world as a result of climate change, travel, and globalization. Arboviral infections are transmitted to humans by the bite of hematophagous arthropods, mainly mosquitoes. Systemic disease may range from asymptomatic to life-threatening. A wide variety of ocular manifestations, including uveitis, has been reported in association with these emerging viral diseases. Numerous viruses other than arboviruses also have been recently recognized as a potential cause of uveitis.

Conclusions: Proper clinical diagnosis of any emerging infectious disease is based on epidemiological data, history, systemic symptoms and signs, and the pattern of ocular involvement. The diagnosis is usually confirmed by detection of virus-specific DNA or antivirus antibodies in serum.