The current literature on the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection provides controversial evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of MLR, NLR, PVR, and PLR. Therefore, this critical literature search and meta-analysis was aimed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection. According to the PRISMA flowchart, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies on these ratios for diagnosing PJI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC were analyzed. We included 11 articles in our meta-analysis, including 7537 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties; among these, 1974 (26%) patients reported a joint infection. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.72 and 0.74, respectively, for NLR, 0.72 and 0.77 for PVR, and 0.77 and 0.75 for PLR. The sensitivity of MLR ranges from 0.54 to 0.81, while the specificity ranges from 0.78 to 0.81. Regarding the evaluation of AUCs, the best diagnostic performance was achieved by MLR (AUC = 0.77) followed by PLR (AUC = 0.75), NLR (AUC = 0.73), and PVR (AUC = 0.70). This meta-analysis demonstrates a fair diagnostic accuracy of these ratios, thus not being useful as a screening tool.

The increasing incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) has led to a growing interest in developing strategies to prevent and treat this severe complication. The surgical site’s application of antiseptic solutions to eliminate contaminating bacteria and eradicate the bacterial biofilm has been increasing over time. Even though it has been proven that combining antimicrobials could enhance their activities and help overcome acquired microbial resistance related to the topical use of antibiotics, the toxicity of integrated solutions is not well described. This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity of solutions containing povidone–iodine (PI) and hydrogen peroxide (H${}_2$O${}_2$), alone or in combination, after 1.3 and 5 min of exposure. Chondrocytes, tenocytes, and fibroblast-like synoviocytes were used for cytotoxicity analysis. Trypan blue stain (0.4% in PBS) was applied to evaluate the dead cells. All solutions tested showed a progressive increase in toxicity as exposure time increased except for PI at 0.3%, which exhibited the lowest toxicity. The combined solutions reported a reduced cellular killing at 3 and 5 min than H${}_2$O${}_2$ at equal concentrations, similar results to PI solutions.

Introduction: Calprotectin is a protein endowed with antimicrobial properties, rendering it a distinctive marker for infection. Two methods are currently available for the assay of calprotectin: the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the lateral flow test (LFT). We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid calprotectin and to compare the accuracy of the laboratory-based test and the qualitative assessment for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection. Materials and methods: We searched (from inception to November 2023) MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies on calprotectin in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio were analyzed. The receiver-operating curve for each method was calculated. Results: We included 14 articles in our meta-analysis, including 902 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties revision; 331 (37%) had a joint infection according to MSIS, MSIS-modified criteria, ICM 2018 and EBJIS 2021. Considering the false-positive result rate of 6% and false-negative result rate of 7%, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI 0.89–0.94) and 0.93 (0.91–0.95), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.91–0.94). No statistical differences in terms of sensitivity and specificity were found between ELISA and LFT. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the two calprotectin assessment methods were: LFT 0.90 (95% CI 0.869–0.935) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.894–0.941), respectively; ELISA 0.96 (95% CI 0.914–0.986) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.934–0.988), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the ELISA was superior to that of the LFT (906.6667, 95% CI 271.2686–3030.3712 versus 113.8886, 95% CI 70.4001-184.2414; p < 0.001). The AUC for ELISA and LFT was 0.968 (95% CI 0.944–0.984) and 0.915 (95% CI 0.895–0.933), respectively. Conclusions: Detection of synovial calprotectin is an accurate test for diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infections. The diagnostic accuracy of the two calprotectin assessment methods is almost comparable. The LFT is a valid, rapid, and more available diagnostic tool, particularly to rule out PJI.

Background: This study evaluated appropriate thresholds for serum biomarkers, synovial fluid white blood cell (SF-WBC) count, and synovial fluid neutrophil (polymorphonuclear leukocyte [PMN]) percentage to predict infection in a patient group who underwent definitive reimplantation after receiving a continuous course of antibiotic therapy for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). These thresholds were then used to generate a scoring system to predict recurrence (or persistence) of infection. Methods: The study included 153 patients with a median age of 73 years (range, 46 to 91 years) who underwent 2-stage revision for chronic knee PJI. Staphylococci were identified at baseline in 107 (70%) of the patients. After the 96-week follow-up period, 12% (19) of the 153 patients had recurrence of the PJI. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the predictive value of common serum biomarkers and SF aspiration before reimplantation, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated. Variables that were significantly different between patients with and without infection recurrence were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model. A half-integer-point scoring system was created based on the final beta coefficients. Results: Regarding the prediction of recurrent infection, a D-dimer level of >1110 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 61%, and AUC of 0.69; an SF-WBC count of >934 cells/µL showed a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.79; and an SF-PMN percentage of >52% showed a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 90%, and AUC of 0.82. The beta coefficients were approximated to 1.5 for the D-dimer level and to 2 for the SF-WBC count and SF-PMN percentage. A total score of >2 was used to classify patients with a high risk of infection recurrence. The ability to discriminate infection recurrence was demonstrated by an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 0.99). Conclusions: Patients with a score of >2 on our proposed scoring system based on serum biomarkers, SF-WBC count, and SF-PMN percentage should not undergo reimplantation, as they are at a high risk for recurrent PJI. Patients with a score of ≤2 can undergo definitive reimplantation with the lowest risk of recurrence. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Postoperative rehabilitation after extensor mechanism reconstruction (EMR) with allograft following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is not standardized. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early and late knee mobilization after EMR. The range of motion (ROM) and extensor lag in both groups were also assessed as the secondary endpoint. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed, including studies dealing with the use of allograft for EMR following TKA. Failure was defined as the persistence of extensor lag > 20°. Coleman Methodology Score and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score were used to assess the quality of studies included. The failure rate was set as the primary outcome in early (4 weeks) and late (8 weeks) mobilization groups after EMR with allograft. Secondary outcomes were postoperative extensor lag and ROM. Twelve articles (129 knees) were finally selected for this meta-analysis. Late and early knee mobilization was described in five and seven studies, respectively. No difference was noted between both groups' failure rates (11/84 vs. 4/38, respectively; p = 0.69). The mean extensor lag at last follow-up was 9.1° ± 8.6 in the early mobilization group, and 6.5° ± 6.1 in the late mobilization group is not significantly different (p > 0.05). The mean postoperative knee flexion was 107.6° ± 6.5 and 104.8° ± 7 in the early and late mobilization group, respectively. While immobilization after EMR in TKA is mandatory to allow tissue healing, early knee mobilization after four weeks can be recommended with no additional risk of failure and increased extensor lag compared to a late mobilization protocol. IV, therapeutic study. Registration PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42019141574.