Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Research Articles

Periprosthetic Joint Infection of Shoulder Arthroplasties: Diagnostic and Treatment Options

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most frequent reasons for painful shoulder arthroplasties and revision surgery of shoulder arthroplasties. Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) is one of the microorganisms that most often causes the infection. However, this slow growing microorganism is difficult to detect. This paper presents an overview of different diagnostic test to detect a periprosthetic shoulder infection. This includes nonspecific diagnostic tests and specific tests (with identifying the responsible microorganism). The aspiration can combine different specific and nonspecific tests. In dry aspiration and suspected joint infection, we recommend a biopsy. Several therapeutic options exist for the treatment of PJI of shoulder arthroplasties. In acute infections, the options include leaving the implant in place with open debridement, septic irrigation with antibacterial fluids like octenidine or polyhexanide solution, and exchange of all removable components. In late infections (more than four weeks after implantation) the therapeutic options are a permanent spacer, single-stage revision, and two-stage revision with a temporary spacer. The functional results are best after single-stage revisions with a success rate similar to two-stage revisions. For single-stage revisions, the microorganism should be known preoperatively so that specific antibiotics can be mixed into the cement for implantation of the new prosthesis and specific systemic antibiotic therapy can be applied to support the surgery.

Propionibacterium: We Found It, Now We Have to Deal with It: Commentary on an article by Jason E. Hsu, MD, et al.: "Single-Stage Revision Is Effective for Failed Shoulder Arthroplasty with Positive Cultures for Propionibacterium".

We congratulate Hsu et al. for their important contribution to the existing knowledge on the treatment options for failed shoulder arthroplasty with suspected infection. The goal of their study was to answer the highly relevant question of whether single-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty performed because of pain, stiffness, or component loosening in patients without any obvious clinical signs of infection is a feasible treatment option even if Propionibacterium is detected in cultures taken from intraoperative periprosthetic specimens. Staphylococci used to be the predominant cause for periprosthetic shoulder infections in the early decades of shoulder arthroplasty, as shown in a prospective collection of >2,000 cases of total shoulder arthroplasties over 33 years from the Mayo Clinic1. However, Propionibacterium has caught up1 or has even taken over the lead in recent years2. Instead of an actual shift of the bacterial spectrum, the improvement of microbiological techniques enabling the identification of low-grade infections may have contributed to …

Two-stage revision for infected shoulder arthroplasty

Periprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) are challenging to treat and often result in significant patient morbidity. Without a standardized treatment protocol, PSIs are often managed similarly to periprosthetic hip and knee infections. Because 2-stage revision is the gold standard for treating periprosthetic hip and knee infections, we performed a case series and literature review to determine its effectiveness in PSIs. We identified 19 patients (14 men) from our institution who were treated with a 2-stage revision after presenting with a PSI. Mean patient age was 63 ± 9 years, and average body mass index was 30.8 ± 5.8. The average time from the index arthroplasty to treatment was 40 months, 8 of 13 positive cultures were Propionibacterium acnes, and 9 of 19 patients had multiple shoulder operations before presenting with infection. Minimum follow-up for all patients was 2 years. After a mean follow-up of 63 months (range, 25-184 months), 15 of 19 patients in our study were successfully treated for PSI. Average postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Assessment score was 69 (range, 32-98) and average postoperative forward elevation was significantly increased from 58° to 119° (P < .001). The incidence of recurrent infection was 26%. The rate of noninfection complications was 16%, for a total complication rate of 42%. In patients with PSIs, especially those with intractable, chronic infections, a 2-stage revision represents a viable treatment option for eradicating infection and restoring function. However, it is important to recognize the risk of recurrent infection and postoperative complications in this challenging patient population.

The cost effectiveness of vancomycin for preventing infections after shoulder arthroplasty: a break-even analysis

Increasing methicillin resistance and recognition of Propionibacterium acnes as a cause of infection in shoulder arthroplasty has led to the adoption of local vancomycin powder application as a more effective method to prevent expensive periprosthetic infections. However, no study has analyzed the cost effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection after shoulder replacement. Cost data for infection-related care of 16 patients treated for deep periprosthetic shoulder infection was collected from our institution for the break-even analysis. An equation was developed and applied to the data to determine how effective vancomycin powder would need to be at reducing a baseline infection rate to make prophylactic use cost effective. The efficacy of vancomycin (absolute risk reduction [ARR]) was evaluated at different unit costs, baseline infection rates, and average costs of treating infection. We determined vancomycin to be cost effective if the initial infection rate decreased by 0.04% (ARR). Using the current costs of vancomycin reported in the literature (range: $2.50/1000 mg to $44/1000 mg), we determined vancomycin to be cost effective with an ARR range of 0.01% at a cost of $2.50/1000 mg to 0.19% at $44/1000 mg. Baseline infection rate does not influence the ARR obtained at any specific cost of vancomycin or the cost of treating infection. We have derived and used a break-even equation to assess efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics during shoulder surgery. We further demonstrated the prophylactic administration of local vancomycin powder during shoulder arthroplasty to be a highly cost-effective practice.

Paper #30 - Periprosthetic shoulder infection: one-stage better than two-stage?

Paper #30 - Periprosthetic shoulder infection: one-stage better than two-stage?

Management of acute or late hematogenous infection after shoulder arthroplasty with irrigation, débridement, and component retention

Irrigation and débridement (I&D) with component retention is an appealing alternative to both patients and surgeons for the management of acute or late hematogenous deep periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI). However, the success rate and results of I&D are poorly documented. This study reports the outcomes and complications of this treatment strategy for acute and delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI. Between 1980 and 2010, 10 shoulders (9 patients) underwent I&D with component retention for the management on an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous PSI at a single institution. Outcome data, including pain, range of motion, need for chronic oral antibiotic suppression therapy, eradication of infection, and need for further surgery were retrospectively collected. Deep infection recurred in 3 shoulders, which were eventually treated with resection arthroplasty. Of the remaining 6 patients (7 shoulders), 5 were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression. At the most recent follow-up, pain was graded as none in 3 shoulders, mild in 1, moderate with activity in 3, moderate in 2, and severe in 1. Among shoulders with retained components, forward elevation was greater than 110° in 6 (median, 140°; range, 30°-160°), and external rotation was greater than 40° in all shoulders (median, 50°; range, 40°-90°). I&D allowed component retention in 70% of shoulders presenting with an acute or delayed-onset acute hematogenous infection. Most patients were prescribed chronic antibiotic suppression, and reasonable motion was maintained.

Detritic synovitis can mimic a Propionibacterium periprosthetic infection.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate that the clinical findings of detritic synovitis complicating a total shoulder arthroplasty can strongly resemble those of a 'stealth' periprosthetic shoulder infection with a low-virulence organism such as Propionibacterium. We present a review of the literature and illustrate an example of detritic synovitis following a total shoulder arthroplasty. The combination of glenoid component loosening and humeral osteolysis after total shoulder arthroplasty are commonly attributed to periprosthetic infection with low virulence organisms, such as Propionibacterium or coagulase negative Staphylococcus. Such a periprosthetic infection can appear long after the index joint replacement. This article points out that these same findings may occur with a non-infectious process initiated by polyethylene, cement or metal debris-detritic synovitis. At present, the important differentiation between these two etiologies can only be ascertained by awaiting the results of cultures obtained at the time of revision surgery.

Definition of a "True" Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection Still Eludes Us.

Periprosthetic shoulder infections associated with Propionibacterium have become a diagnostic challenge for surgeons treating patients with refractory pain and stiffness. This organism can complicate not only shoulder arthroplasties but also nonarthroplasty procedures, such as shoulder arthroscopy and spine surgery1-3. The predilection for the shoulder and the back is likely related to the topographic variation of the skin microbiome. The highest density of Propionibacterium is typically found in the pilosebaceous glands of the oily anterior part of the chest and back4, and so bacteria can easily be introduced into the deep tissues at the time of surgery. The shoulder arthroplasty community is far from a consensus on how to diagnose and manage revision arthroplasty associated with positive Propionibacterium cultures. Periprosthetic shoulder infections do not present with typical signs of erythema and drainage as with periprosthetic hip and knee infections. The presentation can be clandestine, with patients reporting vague stiffness and discomfort often years after an initially successful arthroplasty and often presenting with “aseptic” component loosening. As we know, because Propionibacterium is a fastidious, slow-growing organism, its growth and identification are more difficult than that associated with organisms such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus. Often, surgeons attempting to make the diagnosis of a periprosthetic shoulder infection will send multiple specimens from different areas of the shoulder for culture and then are obligated to wait …

Synovial Fluid Interleukin-6 as a Predictor of Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Synovial Fluid Interleukin-6 as a Predictor of Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

α-Defensin as a predictor of periprosthetic shoulder infection

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in revision shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging because of the indolent nature of the common offending organisms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of synovial fluid α-defensin levels in identifying PJI of the shoulder. Thirty patients evaluated for painful shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled and underwent revision surgery (n = 33 cases). Cases were categorized into infection (n = 11) and no-infection (n = 22) groups on the basis of preoperative and intraoperative findings. Synovial fluid was obtained from preoperative aspirations or intraoperative aspiration before arthrotomy. α-Defensin was tested by the Synovasure (CD Diagnostics, Wynnewood, PA, USA) test for joint infection. Synovial fluid was also obtained intraoperatively from a control group undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (n = 16) for baseline data on normal α-defensin levels in the shoulder. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the diagnostic utility of synovial fluid α-defensin. Synovial α-defensin had an area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 0.78, 63%, 95%, 12.1, and 0.38, respectively. There was a significant difference in α-defensin levels between the infection (median, 3.2 S/CO [signal to cutoff ratio]) and no-infection groups (median, 0.21 S/CO; P = .006). Synovial α-defensin was elevated in the presence of a culture positive for Propionibacterium acnes (median, 1.33 S/CO; P = .03) and showed moderate correlation with the number of positive cultures. Synovial fluid α-defensin was more effective than current diagnostic testing in predicting positive cultures and may be an effective adjunct in the workup of shoulder PJI.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection in the United States: incidence and economic burden

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major cause of morbidity after shoulder arthroplasty. PJI epidemiology has not been well studied. We aimed to analyze the historical incidence, predisposing factors, and economic burden of PJI after shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. Primary shoulder arthroplasty patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 81.80 (total shoulder arthroplasty), 81.81 (hemiarthroplasty), and 81.88 (reverse arthroplasty) in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. PJI was identified by codes 80.01 (arthrotomy for device removal) and 996.66 (prosthetic infection). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predisposing factors for PJI. PJI rate was 0.98% from 2002 to 2011 and did not vary significantly. Comorbidities associated with PJI were weight loss/nutritional deficiency (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-4.51; P = .00047), drug abuse (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.41-4.02; P = .0011), and anemia from blood loss (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.50-3.93; P = .00031) or iron deficiency (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.69-2.49; P < .0001). Demographic factors associated with PJI were younger age (OR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.017-1.024; P < .0001) and male gender (OR, 1.961; 95% CI, 1.816-2.117; P < .0001). In 2011, median hospitalization costs for PJI were $17,163.57 compared with $16,132.68, $13,955.83, and $20,007.87 for total shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse arthroplasty, respectively. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty and a constant infection rate will result in greater overall PJI burden. Whereas hospitalization costs for PJI are comparable to those of primary arthroplasty, they are incurred after the original cost of shoulder arthroplasty. Certain identifiable patient variables correlate with higher PJI rates. Risk factor modification may decrease PJI incidence and help contain costs.

Synovial fluid interleukin-6 as a predictor of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty is challenging because of the low virulence of the most common infecting organisms. The goal of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of measuring synovial fluid interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels for identifying PJI of the shoulder. Thirty-two consecutive patients evaluated for pain at the site of a shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled from November 2012 to September 2013 and underwent revision surgery (thirty-five procedures during which samples were obtained for synovial fluid IL-6 analysis). Cases were categorized into infection (n = 15) and no-infection (n = 20) groups on the basis of objective preoperative and intraoperative findings. Twenty patients treated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were also enrolled to serve as a non-infected control group. Synovial fluid was obtained through aspiration intraoperatively for all patients, as well as preoperatively for some. Synovial fluid IL-6 levels were measured with use of a cytokine immunoassay that utilizes electrochemiluminescent detection. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the diagnostic utility of synovial fluid IL-6 analysis. Based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, synovial fluid IL-6 measurement had an area under the curve of 0.891 with an ideal cutoff value of 359.3 pg/mL. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were 87%, 90%, 8.45, and 0.15, respectively. Seven patients who underwent a single-stage revision had negative results on standard perioperative testing, including the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels, but multiple positive intraoperative tissue cultures. The level of synovial fluid IL-6 was elevated in five of these seven patients, with a median value of 1400 pg/mL. Intraoperative synovial fluid IL-6 values correlated well with preoperative IL-6 synovial fluid values (correlation = 0.61; p = 0.025) and frozen-section histologic findings (p < 0.001). Synovial fluid IL-6 levels were also significantly elevated in patients with Propionibacterium acnes infection (p = 0.01). Measurement of synovial fluid IL-6 levels is more sensitive and specific than current preoperative testing for predicting positive cultures for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. This diagnostic accuracy can lead to improved decision-making in the management of PJI.

Periprosthetic shoulder infections are less elusive to diagnostic arthroscopy: commentary on an article by Matthew F. Dilisio, MD, et al.: "arthroscopic tissue culture for the evaluation of periprosthetic shoulder infection".

Establishing the diagnosis of deep infection as a complication of shoulder arthroplasty continues to be a challenge1. Preoperative evaluation to identify deep infection after arthroplasty involving a lower extremity (hip or knee replacement) relies mainly on radiographic findings as well as various analyses of peripheral blood (CBC [complete blood-cell count], ESR [erythrocyte sedimentation rate], and CRP [C-reactive protein]) and of synovial fluid (cell count, differential cell count, Gram stain, culture, and various other investigational markers). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of these investigations have turned out to be suboptimal when used after shoulder arthroplasty2,3. This is believed to be due partly to the higher prevalence of infection with low-virulence bacteria, primarily Propionibacterium acnes . To further complicate matters, the clinical importance of intraoperative cultures that are unexpectedly positive for P. acnes is not fully understood4,5. Selected patients presenting with a failed shoulder arthroplasty may be suspected of having a deep infection despite negative preoperative investigations. When the index of suspicion is high, the safest approach may be staged revision surgery, with the goal of the first stage being to remove the failed prosthesis and obtain tissue samples for culture. However, this approach has a substantial …

Management of deep postoperative shoulder infections: is there a role for open biopsy during staged treatment?

Despite the gold standard treatment of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, reinfection after periprosthetic shoulder infections and periarticular osteomyelitis can be as high as 37%. This study describes a protocol to detect persistent deep shoulder infection before revision arthroplasty. Patients who presented with periprosthetic shoulder infections and osteomyelitis after previous surgery were treated with a standardized protocol of irrigation and debridement (I&D), removal of implants, antibiotic cement spacer placement, and pathogen-directed antibiotic therapy for 6 weeks. After completion of antibiotics and resolution of clinical symptoms, specimens were obtained from an open biopsy performed in the operating room, followed by revision arthroplasty at a later date if final cultures were without evidence of infection. If evidence of infection persisted, then another course of I&D and antibiotic treatment was performed. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon scores were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Eighteen patients were included between 2005 and 2012. The most common pathogens isolated were Propionibacterium acnes (44%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (39%), and S aureus (22%). Four patients (22%) had evidence of persistent infection on specimens from open biopsy and required subsequent rounds of I&D before replantation. The infecting pathogen in 75% of patients with persistent infection was P acnes, and 38% of patients with P acnes infection had recurrence. Mean follow-up of 24months showed no signs of recurrent infection in any patient and an average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score of71. Despite prior staged treatment for deep postoperative shoulder infections, specimens obtained from open biopsy before replantation detected a persistent infection rate of 22% in all patients and 38% in patients with P acnes infection, which may indicate a role for this procedure in the prevention of recurrent infections.

Diagnosis and Management of Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections.

➤ The unique bacterial flora of the shoulder present diagnostic and treatment challenges that are distinct from those seen with failed hip and knee arthroplasties.➤ The presentation, diagnosis, and management of suppurative periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder are similar to those of the hip and the knee.➤ Failed arthroplasties with positive cultures (FAPCs) are poorly performing shoulder reconstructions associated with low-virulence microorganisms that do not evoke a suppurative inflammatory response. Propionibacterium acnes is the predominant bacterium isolated from these cases.➤ With improved surgeon awareness and the addition of longer tissue-culture incubation times, detection of FAPCs has become more common. However, management is hampered by the lack of reliable, timely tests that can determine the presence of less virulent organisms in the preoperative or intraoperative settings.➤ The implications of positive culture results in FAPCs are unclear. Key test characteristics such as the false-positive rate and the prevalence of positive cultures in well-performing shoulders are unknown as there is no useful confirmatory test to validate the culture data and no reliable way to detect the presence of less virulent microorganisms without reoperation.➤ Soft-tissue and osseous deficits are frequently encountered when revising previously infected shoulders. The rate of complications in these scenarios is high, and the outcomes are the least favorable compared with revisions for any other indication.➤ The development of a consensus definition of a periprosthetic shoulder infection is critical to future investigations of these devastating complications.

Poor utility of serum interleukin-6 levels to predict indolent periprosthetic shoulder infections

Infection after shoulder arthroplasty can present a diagnostic challenge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in diagnosis of periprosthetic infection in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. We prospectively enrolled 69 patients who underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty at one institution. All patients underwent a standard preoperative and intraoperative workup for infection, which included shoulder aspirate culture, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, tissue culture, and frozen section analysis. In addition, serum levels of IL-6 were measured preoperatively in all patients. Infection classification was divided into 4 groups, (1) definite, (2) probable, (3) possible, and (4) no infection, on the basis of previously reported criteria using intraoperative cultures and preoperative and intraoperative findings of infections. Of the 69 patients, 24 were classified as having a definite or probable infection. Propionibacterium acnes was the offending organism for the majority of these cases (20 of 24, 83%). IL-6 was not a sensitive marker of infection for these patients (sensitivity: 3 of 24, 12%; specificity: 3 of 45, 93%). The sensitivity of serum IL-6 was lower compared with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (sensitivity: 10 of 24, 42%; specificity: 37 of 45, 82%) and C-reactive protein level (sensitivity: 11 of 24, 46%; specificity: 42 of 45, 93%). For the non-P. acnes cases (1 Staphylococcus aureus, 1 Enterobacter cloacae, 2 coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species), the sensitivity of IL-6 was 25% (1 of 4). Serum IL-6 is not an effective marker for diagnosis of infection in shoulder arthroplasty. On the basis of this large prospective study, we do not recommend its use as a preoperative diagnostic test in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Serum Interleukin-6 as a Marker of Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Infection after shoulder arthroplasty can be a devastating complication, and subacute and chronic low-grade infections have proven difficult to diagnose. Serum marker analyses commonly used to diagnose periprosthetic infection are often inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) as a marker of periprosthetic shoulder infection. A prospective cohort study of thirty-four patients who had previously undergone shoulder arthroplasty and required revision surgery was conducted. The serum levels of IL-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP), the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and the white blood-cell count (WBC) were measured. The definitive diagnosis of an infection was determined by growth of bacteria on culture of intraoperative specimens. Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) tests were used to determine the presence of a significant difference in the ESR and WBC between patients with and those without infection, while the Fisher exact test was used to assess differences in IL-6 and CRP levels between those groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of each marker were also calculated. There was no significant difference in the IL-6 level, WBC, ESR, or CRP level between patients with and those without infection. With a normal serum IL-6 level defined as <10 pg/mL, this test had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 0.14, 0.95, 0.67, 0.61, and 0.62, respectively. IL-6 analysis may have utility as a confirmatory test but is not an effective screening tool for periprosthetic shoulder infection. This finding is in contrast to the observation, in previous studies, that IL-6 is more sensitive than traditional serum markers for periprosthetic infection.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Shoulder arthroplasty is considered the most effective surgical procedure for endstage shoulder pain from different causes including osteoarthritis, cuff-tear arthropathy, trauma, and tumors. Although uncommon and less frequent than knee or hip periprosthetic infection, periprosthetic shoulder infection represents a devastating complication and, despite treatment, is associated with unsatisfactory results. The most commonly identified microorganisms in periprosthetic shoulder infections are Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Propionibacterium acnes. Diagnosis is not always easy and mainly derives from the integration of clinical symptoms, laboratory exams, radiological studies and microbiological swabs. Different options are available for treatment, including antibiotic therapy, lavage and debridement with retention of the prosthesis, one-stage reimplantation, two-stage reimplantation with antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and resection arthroplasty. The aim of this review is to describe the current knowledge regarding risk factors, etiology, diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

What treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infection? Results from a multicentre retrospective series

Controversy still exists as to the best surgical treatment for periprosthetic shoulder infections. The aim of this multi-institutional study was to review a continuous retrospectiveseries of patients treated in four European centres and to assess the respective eradication rate of various treatment approaches. Forty-four patients were available for this retrospective follow-up evaluation. Functional and clinical evaluation of treatment for infection was performed using the Constant-Murley score, visual analogue scale and patient satisfaction Neer score. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum leucocyte count and C-reactive protein were measured and shoulder X-ray examination performed prior to surgery and at the latest follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 41 months (range 24–98),42 of 44 patients (95.5%) showed no signs of infection recurrence/persistence. Comparable eradication rates were observed after resection arthroplasty (100%; 6/6), two-stage revision (17/17) or permanent antibiotic-loaded spacer implant (93.3%; 14/15). No patient was treated by one-stage revision. On average, both functional and pain scores improved significantly; the worst joint function was observed after resection arthroplasty. This retrospective analysis conducted on the largest published series of patients to date shows comparable infection eradication rates after two-stage revision, resection arthroplasty or permanent spacer implant for the treatment of septic shoulder prosthesis.

Periprosthetic Propionibacterium granulosum Joint Infection After Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report.

We report a case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by Propionibacterium granulosum less than one year after primary total hip arthroplasty performed through the modified Hueter direct anterior approach. A related species, Propionibacterium acnes , has notoriety as a cause of periprosthetic shoulder infection but is seldom a source of lower-extremity PJI1,2. Because of the similarities in bacterial skin flora between the groin and the axilla, there may be an association between the direct anterior approach and Propionibacterium - species infection. The patient was informed that data concerning her case would be submitted for publication, and she provided consent. A seventy-year-old woman with a body mass index of 36.1 kg/m2 and type-2 diabetes mellitus presented to our clinic with a painful right hip in August 2010. She had undergone a primary cementless total hip arthroplasty through a direct anterior approach at an outside institution in July 2009. After the index procedure, she had progressed well until about three months postoperatively, at which time she noted the insidious onset of pain in the proximal part of the right thigh with weight-bearing and hip movement. A cortisone injection for presumed greater trochanteric bursitis provided no relief. The symptoms continued for several months. A subsequent workup revealed an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and a loose femoral stem suggestive of failure of bone ingrowth was seen on radiographs. An attempted hip aspiration resulted in an insufficient quantity of aspirate for a cell count, although cultures were negative. She subsequently underwent revision arthroplasty due to a loose femoral component in May 2010. The diagnosis of a loose implant was confirmed intraoperatively, and the femoral stem was revised to a cemented implant by the original surgeon through the same surgical approach. All intraoperative cultures were negative. There were no …