There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Why most published research findings are false

Prevention of infective endocarditis

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a tremendous burden for individual patients as well as the global health care industry. While a small minority of joint arthroplasties will become infected, appropriate recognition and management are critical to preserve or restore adequate function and prevent excess morbidity. In this review, we describe the reported risk factors for and clinical manifestations of PJI. We discuss the pathogenesis of PJI and the numerous microorganisms that can cause this devastating infection. The recently proposed consensus definitions of PJI and approaches to accurate diagnosis are reviewed in detail. An overview of the treatment and prevention of this challenging condition is provided.

/pdf/prosthetic-joint-infection-20eesbrxfa.pdf

Prosthetic Joint Infection

Inflammation, fracture and bone repair

It is expected that the projected increased usage of implantable devices in medicine will result in a natural rise in the number of infections related to these cases. Some patients are unable to autonomously prevent formation of biofilm on implant surfaces. Suppression of the local peri-implant immune response is an important contributory factor. Substantial avascular scar tissue encountered during revision joint replacement surgery places these cases at an especially high risk of periprosthetic joint infection. A critical pathogenic event in the process of biofilm formation is bacterial adhesion. Prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should be concurrently focused on at least two targets: inhibition of biofilm formation and minimizing local immune response suppression. Current knowledge of antimicrobial surface treatments suitable for prevention of prosthetic joint infection is reviewed. Several surface treatment modalities have been proposed. Minimizing bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation inhibition, and bactericidal approaches are discussed. The ultimate anti-infective surface should be “smart” and responsive to even the lowest bacterial load. While research in this field is promising, there appears to be a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies, and there is urgent need for translational science focusing on this topic.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/15/8/13849/pdf

Antibacterial Surface Treatment for Orthopaedic Implants

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms.

The generation of wear debris is an inevitable result of normal usage of joint replacements. Wear debris particles stimulate local and systemic biological reactions resulting in chronic inflammation, periprosthetic bone destruction, and eventually, implant loosening and revision surgery. The latter may be indicated in up to 15% patients in the decade following the arthroplasty using conventional polyethylene. Macrophages play multiple roles in both inflammation and in maintaining tissue homeostasis. As sentinels of the innate immune system, they are central to the initiation of this inflammatory cascade, characterized by the release of pro-inflammatory and pro-osteoclastic factors. Similar to the response to pathogens, wear particles elicit a macrophage response, based on the unique properties of the cells belonging to this lineage, including sensing, chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and adaptive stimulation. The biological processes involved are complex, redundant, both local and systemic, and highly adaptive. Cells of the monocyte/macrophage lineage are implicated in this phenomenon, ultimately resulting in differentiation and activation of bone resorbing osteoclasts. Simultaneously, other distinct macrophage populations inhibit inflammation and protect the bone-implant interface from osteolysis. Here, the current knowledge about the physiology of monocyte/macrophage lineage cells is reviewed. In addition, the pattern and consequences of their interaction with wear debris and the recent developments in this field are presented.

Macrophages – Key Cells in the Response to Wear Debris from Joint Replacements

Numerous studies provide detailed insight into the triggering and amplification mechanisms of the inflammatory response associated with prosthetic wear particles, promoting final dominance of bone resorption over bone formation in multiple bone multicellular units around an implant. In fact, inflammation is a highly regulated process tightly linked to simultaneous stimulation of tissue protective and regenerative mechanisms in order to prevent collateral damage of periprosthetic tissues. A variety of cytokines, chemokines, hormones and specific cell populations, including macrophages, dendritic and stem cells, attempt to balance tissue architecture and minimize inflammation. Based on this fact, we postulate that the local tissue homeostatic mechanisms more effectively regulate the pro-inflammatory/pro-osteolytic cells/pathways in patients with none/mild periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) than in patients with severe PPOL. In this line of thinking, 'particle disease theory' can be understood, at least partially, in terms of the failure of local tissue homeostatic mechanisms. As a result, we envision focusing current research on homeostatic mechanisms in addition to traditional efforts to elucidate details of pro-inflammatory/pro-osteolytic pathways. We believe this approach could open new avenues for research and potential therapeutic strategies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1753425912451779

Particle disease: biologic mechanisms of periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty.

This prospective study compared PCR and culture techniques in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). We obtained joint fluid samples (JFS; n=115) from patients who had failed total joint arthroplasty between January 2003 and June 2005; 49 were positive for PJI according to established strict criteria. JFS were analyzed by PCR (n=35; control n=66) or culture (n=46, control n=48). PCR was positive in 71% of PJI cases, resulting in sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio for positive results as follows: 0.71; 0.97; 0.88; 0.93; 0.87 and 23.6, respectively. Culture was positive in 44% of PJI samples. Corresponding statistics were 0.44; 0.94; 0.69; 0.87; 0.63 and 7.0, respectively. Significantly higher sensitivity, accuracy and negative predictive values were calculated for PCR versus culture, and there was 83% concordance between the results of intraoperative culture and PCR detection of causative bacteria. Therefore, we conclude that PCR analysis of synovial fluid increases the utility of pre-operative aspiration for patients who require revision total joint surgery.

Jiri Gallo

Papers

Antibacterial Surface Treatment for Orthopaedic Implants

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms.

Macrophages – Key Cells in the Response to Wear Debris from Joint Replacements

Particle disease: biologic mechanisms of periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty.

Culture and PCR analysis of joint fluid in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.