Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay as a complementary tool in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections in the routine setting of a clinical microbiology laboratory, with a special focus on patients at high risk of culture‐negative infections and high suspicion of infection.Methods: The results obtained in the routine care setting with the use of the commercial multiplex PCR (Unyvero i60©, Curetis AG, Holzgerlingen, Germany) were retrospectively reviewed. The test was performed in samples of patients with suspected prosthetic joint infection, which were also processed for conventional diagnostic methods, including sonication of the implant when possible. Patients selected for the test were those with negative cultures after a 24‐h incubation period.Results: Ninety‐nine PCRs were performed, 57 of which were diagnostic of infection according to 2018 MSIS criteria. Nine patients received antibiotics within the 15 days prior to the diagnostic procedure. Tested samples included synovial fluid (33), sonication fluid (56) and tissue biopsies (10). The PCR test detected microorganisms in 26 samples: including two cases of polymicrobial infection. Eleven patients were diagnosed by using PCR only. The most frequently detected microorganism in PCR was Coagulase‐Negative Staphylococcus in 11 samples, followed by Staphylococcus aureus in five. One sample was positive for the bacteria universal primer, included in the 2.0 version of the kit. Only one discrepancy was detected between a negative PCR and a positive culture. One sample was also positive for a resistance marker (detection of mecA gene in a case of methicillin‐resistant S. aureus infection).Conclusion: The incorporation of the Unyvero ITI multiple PCR technique in patients selected by clinical experts is a useful tool for the diagnosis of bone and joint infections in a routine care setting. A close clinical‐microbiological collaboration improves the usefulness of this kit for the management of patients with these infections.

One of the most commonly used treatments for acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention), which comprises the debridement and the retention of the implant, followed by antibiotic treatment. The efficacy of DAIR remains unclear, as the literature has demonstrated variable success rates, ranging from 26% to 92%. The Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most closely related causative microorganisms, especially with acute and late-acute PJI; it has been identified as one of the most significant predictors of DAIR failure. The current guidelines consider the use of vancomycin as the therapy of choice, but it requires the close control of possible side effects. The aim of this study is to determine if a new combination of antibiotics (a highly bactericidal initial combination followed by an antibiofilm scheme) decreases the failure of DAIR-treated acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by Staphylococcus aureus. A retrospective analysis of cases of orthopedic infections during a nine-year period (2011–2019) was performed. A total of 45 acute PJI cases caused by S. aureus were diagnosed. The results of two antibiotic schemes were compared: a novel scheme comprising 5 days of daptomycin (10 mg/kg/24 h) + cloxacillin (2 g/6 h) followed by levofloxacin (500 mg/24 h) + rifampicin (600 mg/24 h), versus a traditional, less bactericidal scheme of vancomycin (1000 mg/12 h) plus rifampicin (600 mg/24 h) or levofloxacin (500 mg/24 h) plus rifampicin (600 mg/24 h). Twenty-two out of the twenty-four patients treated with the new scheme (91.6%) were free of infection after 24.8 months of mean follow-up, whereas fourteen out of twenty-one patients (66.6%) were free of infection after 46.6 months of follow-up. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.036). Demographic comparisons demonstrated homogeneous features, except the Charlson score, which was higher in the novel scheme group (p = 0.047). The combination of high-dose daptomycin and cloxacillin, followed by levofloxacin plus rifampicin, together with surgical treatment, shows better results when compared with other antibiotic schemes for treating acute PJI caused by S. aureus in which DAIR was performed.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after joint arthroplasty, with polymicrobial PJIs representing a distinct subset associated with worse outcomes. This study aims to characterize the risk factors, microbiological profiles, and clinical outcomes of polymicrobial PJIs in a single tertiary care center. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 499 patients diagnosed with PJI between 2010 and 2023. Polymicrobial infection was defined by isolation of ≥2 distinct pathogens from intraoperative samples. Demographic, microbiological, and clinical data were analyzed. Treatment success was defined as infection eradication without recurrence or chronic suppressive therapy. Polymicrobial PJIs accounted for 18.2% of cases. Patients with polymicrobial infections had higher rates of obesity, insulin-dependent diabetes, and higher Charlson comorbidity scores. Coagulase-negative staphylococci and gram-negative bacilli were more frequently isolated in polymicrobial infections, while S. aureus predominated in monomicrobial cases. Treatment success rates were significantly lower in polymicrobial infections, both in acute (61.5% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.003) and chronic settings (51.3% vs. 75.3%, p = 0.02). Polymicrobial PJIs are associated with distinct microbiological patterns, increased comorbidity burden, and significantly worse clinical outcomes. Recognition of specific risk factors and pathogen profiles is essential to optimize management strategies for this complex condition.

Purpose: While tuberculosis remains a significant global health concern, prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) caused by members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex are exceptionally rare. Our objective is to perform a retrospective search of new cases of this disease and analyze all cases available in the literature of tuberculous PJIs, aiming to detect factors that may influence patient outcomes. Methods: The ESGIAI and ESGMYC study groups were used to collect information on non-published cases of tuberculous prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Additionally, a literature review of all published cases of tuberculous PJIs was conducted. All identified cases in the retrospective study and in the literature review were merged and included in the statistical analysis, involving both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Fifteen previously unreported cases of tuberculous prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) from four countries were detailed. Among them, ten patients were female, with a median age of 76 years. The hip was affected in 13 cases. Seven patients experienced co-infection with another microorganism. Treatment approaches varied, with 13 patients undergoing implant removal, one treated with DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention), and one case was treated with an unknown treatment method. All patients received antibiotic therapy and achieved a cure. The literature review that was conducted detected 155 published cases. Univariate analysis revealed a statistical significance for previous tuberculosis, joint, and no importance of surgery for cure. Conclusions: Tuberculous prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare condition, typically presenting as a localized chronic infection. Antibiotic treatment is essential for the management of these patients, but neither surgical treatment nor duration of treatment seems to have importance in the outcome.

Despite recent advances during the last few years, microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections remains a challenge. Molecular biology techniques have been developed to try to overcome this problem, and recently, many of them have become available for many laboratories. Some of them, especially commercial multiplex PCR-based assays and universal 16S rDNA homemade PCR assays, are now available in many laboratories. Moreover, new technologies have appeared, especially metagenomics and next-generation sequencing. These techniques have demonstrated their potential in many studies but appear to be experimental at present. A few studies have evaluated the possible use of these methods in the clinical routine, and a review of the critical aspects for the selection of a molecular method (accuracy, complexity, cost) was performed. Finally, a proposal for a protocol that includes molecular biology techniques was made according to the literature published in this field. In conclusion, molecular biology techniques are ready to be used in the clinical routine of a microbiology laboratory, but their use must be carried out in accordance with the many special characteristics of each laboratory. In all cases, the interpretation of the results must be conducted by a multidisciplinary team with experience in the management of these patients.