Defining a Synovial Fluid White Blood Cell Count Threshold to Predict Periprosthetic Infection after Shoulder Arthroplasty

Background: The diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) requires a thorough diagnostic workup. Synovial fluid aspiration has been proven to be a reliable tool in the diagnosis of joint infections of the lower extremity, but shoulder specific data is limited. This study defines a threshold for synovial fluid white blood cell count (WBC) and assesses the reliability of microbiological cultures. Methods: Retrospective study of preoperative and intraoperative fluid aspiration of 31 patients who underwent a revision of a shoulder arthroplasty (15 with PSI defined by IDSA criteria, 16 without infection). The threshold for WBC was calculated by ROC/AUC analysis. Results: WBC was significantly higher in patients with PSI than in other patients. A threshold of 2800 leucocytes/mm3 showed a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 88% (AUROC 0.92). Microbiological cultures showed a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 100%. Conclusions: A threshold of 2800 leucocytes/mm3 in synovial fluid can be recommended to predict PSI. Microbiological culture has an excellent specificity and allows for targeted antibiotic therapy. Joint aspiration presents an important pillar to diagnose PSI.

Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.