After a hip, knee or shoulder arthroplasty, the evolution is not always favorable. It can be marked by an infectious or non-infectious complication, most often implant failure. In this context, joint fluid aspiration (JFA) is indicated to document a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) or to bring to light arguments for implant failure. Nevertheless, opinions differ on its indication for microbiological identification. Some teams perform it systematically when faced with a prosthesis dysfunction. Others, only in the presence of suggestive signs of PJI. Finally, others never perform it. Based on clinical, radiological and biological (CRP) signs, at the preoperative stage and before JFA, we classify our patients into 3 groups: supposedly septic (chronic joint infection), supposedly aseptic (implant failure) or intermediate (Unknown). This last group, often encountered in consultation, poses a diagnosis problem more than the others. In our experience, JFA is an essential diagnosis tool in these 3 groups of patients. It helps to choose the surgical strategy. In addition, the dosage of biomarkers in the joint fluid as the alpha defensin, the leucocyte esterase and the CRP could provide an additional argument to investigate the infectious origin or not, in particular in difficult cases. In summary, the disagreement on the usefulness of JFA in case of PJI suspicion and any other prosthetic dysfunction, the lack of data on large prospective studies and our questioning about the contribution of JFA in the aseptic and intermediate group of patients, motivated us to set up this study to evaluate the interest of the JFA for the preoperative diagnosis, as well as that of the dosage of biomarkers in the joint fluid.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Analysis of the bacteriological concordance between JFA and perioperative samples
Timeframe: From JFA till perioperative samples bacteriological analysis termination