Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026

Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
Routine intraoperative infection testing in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision: a matched cohort retrospective
Mattia Loppini1,2, Caterina Rocchi3, Marco Di Maio1,2
1Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Introduction:
Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) complicate 1-2% of primary and up to 4% of revision arthroplasties, and their diagnosis remains challenging due to the lack of a diagnostic gold standard. Differentiating PJI from aseptic failure is particularly difficult in low-grade or biofilm-related infections. Routine intraoperative microbiological screening is not recommended in presumed aseptic revisions. This study aimed to evaluate the association between routine intraoperative microbiological screening and implant survival in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty. A secondary objective was to identify preoperative predictors of unexpected PJIs.
Methods:
Retrospectively collected data of patients undergoing presumed aseptic THA and TKA revisions between 2013 and 2019 were included. Two matched cohorts were compared: a screened group (2016-2019) undergoing routine intraoperative microbiological sampling, and an unscreened one (2013-2015) without systematic screening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank testing assessed overall and infection-free survival. Univariate conditional logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses evaluated potential associations between preoperative serum markers and unexpected PJI.
Results:
A total of 559 patients were included, of whom 295 underwent screening and 264 did not. Unexpected infections occurred in 20.3% (n = 60) of screened patients. No significant differences in implant survival were observed between groups. Although overall and infection-free survival were numerically higher in the screened cohort, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.168 and p = 0.118, respectively). Stratified analyses by joint and failure mechanism showed comparable findings. C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were associated with unexpected PJI (p = 0.004 and p = 0.046), but ROC analysis suggested limited discrimination of individual markers, whereas a combined serum model improved diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.833).
Conclusions:
Routine intraoperative microbiological screening in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty was not associated with a significant improvement in implant survival. Future studies should investigate whether selective screening improves outcomes. Level III retrospective cohort study.
Insights
Routine intraoperative microbiological screening did not improve implant survival in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty. However, combining C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate showed promise for diagnosing unexpected periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs).
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Infectious Disease
- Biomarkers
Background:
- Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a significant complication of arthroplasty, with diagnosis challenging, especially in presumed aseptic revisions.
- Current guidelines do not recommend routine intraoperative microbiological screening in these cases.
- Differentiating PJI from aseptic failure is critical for appropriate patient management and implant longevity.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the association between routine intraoperative microbiological screening and implant survival in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty.
- To identify preoperative predictors of unexpected PJIs in patients undergoing revision surgery.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 559 patients undergoing presumed aseptic hip (THA) and knee (TKA) revisions.
- Comparison of two matched cohorts: screened (routine intraoperative sampling) and unscreened.
- Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and logistic regression with ROC analysis for preoperative serum markers.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in implant survival was observed between screened and unscreened groups (p=0.168).
- Unexpected PJIs occurred in 20.3% of screened patients.
- C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were associated with unexpected PJI; a combined serum model demonstrated improved diagnostic performance (AUC=0.833).
Conclusions:
- Routine intraoperative microbiological screening in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty does not significantly improve implant survival.
- Further research is needed to determine if selective screening strategies can enhance outcomes.
- Preoperative serum markers, particularly when combined, may aid in identifying unexpected PJIs.