Next Article in Journal
Recent Trends and Applications of Nanoencapsulated Bacteriocins against Microbes in Food Quality and Safety
Next Article in Special Issue
Clinical Features and Outcomes of Enterococcal Bone and Joint Infections and Factors Associated with Treatment Failure over a 13-Year Period in a French Teaching Hospital
Previous Article in Journal
Immaturin-Nuclease as a Model System for a Gene-Programmed Sexual Development and Rejuvenescence in Paramecium Life History
Previous Article in Special Issue
Imaging of Musculoskeletal Soft-Tissue Infections in Clinical Practice: A Comprehensive Updated Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/microorganisms11010084
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Epidemiology of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature

by
Andrea Sambri
1,
Renato Zunarelli
1,
Michele Fiore
1,*,
Marta Bortoli
1,
Azzurra Paolucci
1,
Matteo Filippini
1,
Eleonora Zamparini
2,
Sara Tedeschi
2,
Pierluigi Viale
2 and
Massimiliano De Paolis
1
1
Orthopaedic Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
2
Infectious Disease Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(1), 84; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010084
Submission received: 27 October 2022 / Revised: 15 December 2022 / Accepted: 24 December 2022 / Published: 28 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prosthetic and Bone Infections: A Multidisciplinary Approach)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fungal prosthetic joint infection (fPJI) is a rare complication; nonetheless, it represents a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. There are no official guidelines on the most effective approach to identify and treat fPJIs. This systematic review aims to review the current literature on fPJI management and provide a comprehensive overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Studies eligible for this systematic review were identified through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until 30 September 2022. Further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Sixty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 372 cases of fPJI; such cases were described mostly in case reports and small case series with only a few larger cohort studies. Diagnosis of fPJI is challenging because of its chronic and indolent clinical course; it is further complicated by the technical difficulty of harvesting fungal cultures. A two-stage revision was the primary procedure in 239 (64.2%) patients whereas DAIR and one-stage approaches were reported in 30 (8.0%) and 18 (4.8 %) cases. In conclusion, our study highlights the heterogeneity of the reported treatments of fPJI, particularly in terms of medical management. With concern to a surgical approach, a two-stage revision arthroplasty is generally suggested, considering fPJI a delayed or late infection. The need for multicenter, prospective studies to provide standardized protocols and improve the treatment of fungal PJI clearly emerges.

1. Introduction

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common complications following arthroplasty, occurring in as many as 0.7% of total hip arthroplasties (THA) and 2% of total knee arthroplasties [1,2]. PJIs are mostly caused by bacteria, especially the Staphylococcus species, while fungal PJIs (fPJIs) are much rarer, accounting for about 1% of total PJIs [3,4]. Although several species of fungi may cause PJI, the most common is the Candida species [3,5]. In contrast to bacterial PJIs, the clinical presentation of fPJIs tends to be more subtle; acute onset of symptoms is unlikely. Thus, diagnosis is often late, [6] resulting in delayed initiation of appropriate therapy.
Fungi are notoriously difficult to isolate in culture due to the need for specialized culture mediums and longer incubation periods [7]. In some culture-negative cases, uncultivable organisms must be taken into account and alternative identification techniques must be considered [6]. Furthermore, the isolation of a fungus does not exclude the presence of bacteria: concomitant bacterial infection is shown to occur in 15% and 20% of fPJI cases [3]. Bacteria and fungi are in fact thought to act synergistically within the prosthetic biofilm to produce more virulent infections [8,9].
Fungal PJI is well known for having a much higher failure rate than bacterial infections [10]. with rates of eradication of infection ranging between 50%+ [11] and 93% [5] in different studies. There are no established guidelines for the treatment of fPJI. Treatment options include antifungal drugs, debridement and implant retention (DAIR), and one- and two-stage revision approaches with variable outcomes [5,12,13,14,15]. Among them, a two-stage approach is widely accepted as the treatment of choice [16,17]. Controversies also exist about the ideal interval between implant removal and reimplantation, the usefulness of antifungal-loaded cement spacers, and the duration of systemic antifungal treatment [18].
The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence on the diagnosis and management of fungal PJI and to provide a comprehensive overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view.

2. Material and Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines [19,20]. Studies eligible for this systematic review were identified through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until 30 September 2022. The search string used was (spacer OR infection OR prosthesis) AND (mycotic OR fungal).
Resulting articles were screened by the relevance of titles and abstracts; when the abstract provided insufficient information about inclusion and exclusion criteria, the full-text article was examined.
The following were considered preliminary exclusion criteria: publication in non-peer-reviewed journals, lack of an abstract, and duplicates of already included papers. Animal model studies, biomechanical reports, technical notes, letters to editors, cadaver or in vitro investigations, and instructional were also excluded. Due to the limited amount of relevant literature, study design and location were not considered to further refine the results. No restrictions regarding pathogen type or treatment strategy were employed.
Articles that were considered relevant by the electronic search were retrieved in full-text and a hand-search of their bibliography was performed to find further related articles. Reviews and meta-analyses were also analyzed for cross-referencing purposes. Articles with insufficient details about study populations, surgical intervention, and type of reconstruction were excluded. The remaining studies were categorized by study type according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) [21]. All the included studies were reviewed, and data related to topics of interest were extracted and summarized (Table 1 and Table 2).
The success of the treatment was defined as the achievement of infection control at the last follow-up (the absence of clinical and/or radiological and/or laboratory signs of infection, as mentioned in the individual papers). Failure of the treatment was defined as the persistence of infection, reinfection, or no reimplantation; the repetition of surgical debridement in the interstage phase due to the persistence of infection was not considered a failure when it eventually resulted in successful control of the infection at last follow-up after the end of the treatment.
The study is descriptive, and data are presented as total frequencies and percentages. The heterogeneity and small sample size of most of the included studies did not allow any statistical analysis.

3. Results

A total of 63 studies on fungal PJI were found. A total of 372 fungal PJI cases were retrieved, most of which were collected from case reports [12,14,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], small case series [15,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71], and only a few from cohort studies with larger samples [3,4,5,8,11,72,73,74,75,76] (Table 1) Two studies reported an incidence of fungal PJI of 1.9% [8] and 12.4% [73] in the whole PJI cohort.
Among the fungal infections included, 161 were total hip arthroplasties (THA), 207 total knee arthroplasties (TKA), one total elbow arthroplasty, and three total shoulder arthroplasties. Three patients had a bilateral TKA infection [5,76]. The mean age across all studies was 64.8 ± 14.2 years. The mean follow-up period was 27 months, ranging between 3 and 136 months. However, not all the included studies reported on the duration of follow-up.
Only a few studies reported on risk factors for fPJI [3,11,17,18,30,63,74,75,77,78,79]. Despite a high heterogeneity, diabetes, prolonged use of antibiotics, a previous PJI, and immunosuppression were generally recognized as important risk factors for fPJI.
Table
Table 1. Review of the Literature.
Table 1. Review of the Literature.
StudyPJI (Total), nPJI (Mycotic), nSiteAge, Years (Mean)Follow-up, Months (Mean)Timing of PJI, Months (Mean)TreatmentNo Reimplantation (n)Medical Treatment DurationMedical TreatmentPJI RecurrenceAmputations for RecurrenceTiming PJI Recurrence, Months (Mean)
THATKASHOULDERELBOWONE-STAGETWO-STAGETHREE-STAGEDAIRMedicalOther
Theil et al. [4]2626188--7227NR224----Died: 3
Girdlestone: 3		NRCaspofungin: 14
Micafungin: 4
Fluconazole: 3
Amphotericin B: 2
Voriconazole: 2
Anidulafungin: 1		447
Hwang et al. [5]2830 *-30--695219.6-26-4---NRAmphotericin B: 24
Fluconazione: 4		20NR
Geng et al. [63]8844--6055NR-8----1NRFluconazole: 5
Voriconazole + fluconazole: 1
Fluconazole + Amphotericin + Caspofungin: 1
Fluconazole+ Caspofungin:1		20NR
Wang et al. [64]55-5--67427.4-5-----2 weeks ev
4–8 weeks os
2 weeks ev (after reimplantation)		Fluconazole + cefuroxime + levofloxacine ev (2 weeks)
Fluconazolo + levofloxacine + riphampicin os (4–8 weeks)
Fluconazole + cefuroxime + levofloxacine ev (2 weeks) — after reimplantation		00-
Kim et al. [65]99-9--7666NR-9-----3 months: 2
4 months: 1
6 months: 1
12 months: 2
14 months: 1
15 months: 2		NR00-
Baecker et al. [72]1818117--7235NR--18---Arthrodesis: 3
Girdlestone: 2		6 monthsFluconazole00-
George et al. [66]22-2--603360.52------4 monthsFluconazole00-
Mafrachi et al. [22]11-1--60129-1-----15 monthsCaspofungin + Fluconazol ev,
Fluconazol os
Fluconazol + amphotericin B ev
Fluconazolo os (12 months)		00-
Enz et al. [73]14518144--70NRNR-7-1 Amputation: 9-NRNR30NR
Brown et al. [74]31311318--948NR121-5 -Permanent spacer: 4NRFluconazole120NR
Sidhu et al. [8]118922814--64NR36.4-22----Amputation: 4
Girdlestone: 1		1.5 monthsVoriconazole: 19
Voriconazole + caspofungin 2
Voriconazole + Ambisone + Itraconazole: 1		86NR
Ornell et al. [23]11---15731.5-1----Died: 16 monthsFluconazole00-
Kurmis et al. [24]11-1--70NR12-1-----NRNR00-
Riaz et al. [75]414121191-65NRNR-----..NRNR00-
Gao et al. [76]1718513--6165NR-18----5NRFluconazole
Voriconazole		10NR
Bartash et al. [25]111---54191-1-----3 monthsPosaconazole00-
Hasan et al. [26]111---45336----1--NRNR00-
Yilmaz et al. [27]11-1--8148NR-1-----6 weeksAmphotericin B00-
Baumann et al. [28]11-1--328455-1-----9 monthsAmphotericin B + Fluconazole00-
Austin et al. [29]11-1--80NR25-1----Arthrodesis3 monthsAmphotericin B00-
Cobo et al. [30]111---77548----1--6 monthsCaspofungin + Fluconazole00-
Kelesidis et al. [31]111---93125----1--NRFluconazole00-
Graw et al. [67]22-2--691363-2-----4 monthsVoriconazole + Caspofungin
Caspofungin + Fluconazole		00-
Bland et al. [32]11-1--55NR2---1---2 monthsFluconazol + micafungin102
Gaston et al. [33]11-1--42NR240---1---NRAmphotericin B (endoarticular)112
Phelan et al. [68]4431--74NR22-4-----4-6 monthsAmphotericin B + Fluconazole00-
Lackner et al. [34]11-1--611221-1----Amputation: 1NRItroconazol + voriconazole106
Johannssonet al. [35]111---844108-1-----4 monthsAphootericin B + fluconazol00-
Gottesman-Yekutieli et al. [36]111---561224-1-----10 monthsVoriconazole00-
Fowler et al. [37]111---8436156---1---NRItroconazole00-
Dutronc, et al. [69]7734--72303.7-5-11-Arthrodesis: 155 monthsNR00-
DeHart. et al. [38]11-1--5630NR----1--30 monthsItroconazole + Amphotericin B00-
Deelstra et al. [39]111---73726-1-----NRFluconazole00-
Azzam et al. [3]31311417--644525-29-2--Arthrodesis: 3
Amputation: 4		7.5 monthsFluconazole: 23
Amphotericin B: 5
Caspofungin: 3		105NR
Austen et al. [40]11-1--77660----1--4 monthsFluconazole00-
Nayeri et al. [41]111---6224601------NRFlucitosine + Amphotericin B00-
Marra et al. [42]111---59NR0.5-1-----NRFluconazole00-
Açikgöz et al. [43]11-1--7059-1----Arthrodesis: 1NRFluconazole00-
Reddy et al. [44]11-1--622424-1-----4.5 monthsFluconazole00-
Zhu et al. [45]111---4431---1---1.5 monthsAmphotericin B + Voriconazole00-
Fukasawa et al. [46]11-1--80241---1---1 monthFluconazole00-
Wada et al. [47]11-1--7736NR---1---NRFluconazole00-
Lazzarini et al. [48]111---63247-1-----2 monthsAmphotericin B00-
Artiaco et al. [49]111---70NR60----1--6 monthsFluconazole1012
Jenny et al. [50]222---6530422------2 monthsVoriconazole + Flucitosine00-
Merrer et al. [12]111---8111144----1--10 monthsFluconazole00-
Anagnostakos et al. [15]7743--6828NR-7-----1.5 monthsFluconazole: 5
Voriconazole: 1
Caspofungin: 1		00-
Paul et al. [51]11-1--632420-1----Arthrodesis: 12 monthsAmphotericin B + Fluocitosine00-
Selmon et al. [52]11-1--7548841------2 monthsItraconazole00-
Ramamohan et al. [53]111---652411-1-----1.5 monthsAmphotericin B + Flucitosine00-
Bruce et al. [54]222---6013260-2-----NRFluconazole00-
Lidder et al. [55]111---762424-1-----6 monthsAmphotericin B00-
Yang et al. [56]11-1--684824-1-----1 monthFluconazole00-
Wu et al. [14]11-1--721224-1-----4 monthsFluconazole00-
Ueng et al. [11]161679--624121-16----Persistent spacer10 monthsFluconazole1018
Lichtman [57]11--1-59NR30-1-----NRAmphotericin B + ketoconazole00-
Lambertus et al. [58]2211--63NR10-2-----6 monthsAmphotericin B + ketoconazole00-
Darouiche et al. [70]1010541-631611.5-10----Arthrodesis: 31 monthAmphotericin B00-
Tunkel et al. [59]11-1--371272-1-----NRAmphotericin B + ketoconazole111
Cushing et al. [60]11-1--731230----1--12 monthsFluconazole00-
Simonian et al. [61]11-1--797236----1--8 monthsKetoconazole00-
Brooks et al. [62]11-1--64249---1---7 monthsAmphotericin B + Fluconazole00-
Klatte et al. [71]101064--689625-------1.5 months3 Flucytosin + Amphotericin B + Fluconazole
2 Voriconazole
4 Flucytosin + Amphotericin B
1 Fluconazole		10NR
Ji et al. [80]111147--6612NR11------4 months9 Fluconazole
2 Voriconazole		4015
PJI: prosthetic joint infection; DAI: debridement and implant retention; *: Bilateral PJI; THA: total hip arthroplasty; TKA: total knee arthroplasty; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 2. Most frequently reported pathogens.
Table 2. Most frequently reported pathogens.
PathogenPJI, nPJI, %
C. Albicans17249%
C. Parapsilosis9427%
C. Glabrata216%
C. Tropicalis113%
A. Fumigatus93%
Aspergillus spp.51%
C. Guillermondii41%
C. Famata41%
Among the isolated microorganisms, the most prevalent were Candida spp.: C. albicans were responsible for 49% of cases followed by C. parapsilosis (27%) and C. glabrata (6%). (Table 2) Other less common Candida species included C. pelliculosa, C. lipolytica, C. utilis, C. dubliniensis, and C. freschussii, each reported in a single case. Other reported fungi comprised Aspergillus Fumigatus (3%). In five additional cases, (1%) Aspergillus spp. were reported with no further details. In a small number of patients other fungi were identified as the pathogenic organism: Pithomyces, Penicillium, Rhodotorula minuta, Virticillium, Blastoschizomyces capitatus, Alternaria, Trichosporon and Aureobasidium, although this is not an exhaustive list.
The use of many different antifungal agents has been reported. The choice was dependent on case-specific pathogens and medical comorbidities. The duration of intravenous therapy was also variable between studies with an average of 4 months, even if not reported in all studies. Intravenous regimens were typically followed by prolonged courses of oral antifungals. Fluconazole was the most used, both as a monotherapy and in combination. Intravenous amphotericin B was also used, often in combination with either fluconazole or flucytosine. The use of echinocandins (micafungin, anidulafungin, and caspofungin) was also described.
A two-stage exchange was the primary surgical procedure in 239 patients. A one-stage approach and DAIR were reported in 30 (8.0%) and 18 (4.8%) cases, respectively, mainly as case reports. In a small case series reporting on 10 cases treated with a single-stage approach, Klatte et al. [71] observed only one case with a recurrence of infection out of 10 cases. On the other hand, Ji et al. [80] observed a 36% fPJI recurrence rate. All other data on DAIR and one-stage can only be deduced by summarizing sparse and heterogeneous data reported in the literature. Success rates of the two-stage approach also vary widely. Azzam et al. [3] reported a success rate of 47.4% among 31 cases. Phelan et al. [68] described an eradication rate of 80%. In addition, Anagnostakos et al. [15] observed no recurrence among seven cases of fPJI treated by the two-stage exchange protocol, and Ueng et al. [11] reported 16 patients with a success rate of 50%.
A three-stage approach with planned spacer exchange was reported by Baecker et al. [72] in 18 cases with a 72% rate of reimplantation.

4. Discussion

Only a few publications described the detection rate of fungi in PJIs in total, reporting a 0.9–2.0% rate [8,74,81,82,83]. However, Enz et al. observed [73] a much higher incidence of fPJI, detecting a fungus in 12.4% of the whole PJI cohort.
The diagnosis of fPJI is challenging because of its chronic and indolent clinical course. Upon physical examination, patients frequently only manifest mild symptoms (pain, swelling, and/or reduced range of motion in the absence of acute local inflammatory signs) that are similar to those of low-grade PJI [84]. A sinus tract represents a major diagnostic criterium according to the 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria [85]; however, it was only reported in 0% [3] to 16% of cases [74]. Fungal PJI should therefore be suspected in patients with one or more specific risk factors [8,63], such as immunosuppression, obesity, diabetes, many previous revision surgeries as well as long-term antibiotic treatments [3,11,17,18,30,63,74,75,77,78,79]. Moreover, chronic medical conditions such as prolonged steroid use, renal disease, malignancy, rheumatoid arthritis, chemotherapy, and hepatic diseases, which can contribute to poor host immunity, can increase the risk of fungal infections [65]. Riaz et al. [75] reported that antimicrobial therapy within three months before the diagnosis of PJI and the presence of wound drainage lasting longer than five days prior to the diagnosis of PJI is significantly associated with increased odds of fPJI when compared with bacterial PJI. Nonetheless, a recent study [30] reported that 32% of fPJI patients have no risk factors.
Systemic inflammatory markers, including erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and D-dimer, are the first screening tool for PJI, but they are generally minimally elevated or even normal [75,86,87]. In the presence of high clinical suspicion, synovial fluid should be sampled and sent for testing and culture [88].
Additionally, an underestimation of the prevalence of fPJI can be due to the difficulty in culturing fungi. To optimize the diagnostic process, the use of selective fungal media and an adequate incubation time of 5 to 14 days is recommended [89]. In some culture-negative cases, uncultivable organisms must be taken into account and alternative identification techniques must be considered, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) [6]. Despite no uniform diagnostic standards existing for fPJI, according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society’s (EBJIS) definition of PJI [90], the isolation of an uncommon or highly virulent organism on only one sample should be considered a probable infection.
The significant variability of pathogens associated with fPJI further complicates their management. The most identified fungus is Candida albicans (in approximately 49% of cases) followed by Candida parapsilosis (27%) [75,91]. Candida albicans forms complex biofilms compared to other Candida spp. [91,92], thus contributing to its pathogenicity. Only 14 cases of fPJI caused by Aspergillus spp. have been reported in the literature [93]. Moreover, a high rate of mixed bacterial and fPJI have been reported (ranging between 16% [74] and 33% [17] of fPJIs), which increases difficulties in their diagnosis and treatment. Mixed infections are associated with significantly worse outcomes. Sidhu et al. [8] described a revision-free survival rate of 38% in mixed infections. Bacteria and fungi establish a mutually beneficial mixed biofilm that protects them from antimicrobial treatment [73]. For example, Staphylococci can affect the activity of antifungal drugs while staphylococcal proteinase can enhance the adhesion capability of C. albicans [94], thus favoring the survival of the yeast. On the other hand, the presence of Candida species may increase the growth of anaerobic bacteria by generating a hypoxic microenvironment [95], stimulate biofilm development in Enterococcus faecalis strains (which are normally unable to form biofilm on their own [96]), and lead to an enhanced tolerance of Staphylococcus aureus towards vancomycin [97].
Implant removal is of paramount importance for the successful treatment of fPJI [98]. A total of 18 cases treated with DAIR have been reported, often resulting in persistent infection requiring multiple revisions [5,12,32,33,46,61,74,80]. However, most of these data can be only deduced by extrapolating sparse data reported in the literature. Moreover, most of these cases are reported together with other treatments in heterogeneous series.
A one-stage approach was reported in 30 cases with discordant results. In a small case series reporting on 10 cases treated with a single-stage approach, Klatte et al. [71] observed only one case with a recurrence of infection out of 10 cases. On the other hand, Ji et al. [80] observed a 36% fPJI recurrence rate. One-stage exchange might be considered in unfit patients who are less likely to tolerate multiple procedures; however, similarly to bacteria PJI, the pathogen involved must be well studied, and the response to antifungal treatment must be predictable [71]. In the case of rare or resistant pathogens, a single-stage exchange is often ineffective. However, the interpretation of treatment success is difficult because of the small number and heterogeneity of the described cases [52,71,80].
Two-stage exchange is the most commonly used surgical approach for fPJI with rates of infection eradication up to above 90% [99]. However, success rates vary widely. Kuiper et al. [17] reviewed 164 cases of fPJI and reported a success rate for the two-stage exchange protocol of 84.8%. In the series by Azzam et al. [3], the success rate was 47.4%. Phelan et al. [68] reported a success rate of 80%. Anagnostakos et al. [15] described seven cases of fPJI treated by the two-stage exchange protocol without any recurrence. A therapy protocol with three-stage revision has also been described [72]. Repeated surgical debridement combined with a scheduled spacer exchange could facilitate continuous delivery of the highest local drug concentrations with optimized release kinetics [72,100].
The use of cement spacers loaded with antifungal agents has been suggested to be effective in eradicating local infections and reducing the duration of antifungal treatment. However, no definitive evidence exists on which type and dosage of drug need to be incorporated to achieve the best results [101]. Amphotericin is the most used, due to its relative heat stability in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement. However, Cunningham et al. [102] reported a decrease in compressive strength of the spacer over time with the addition of amphotericin. Voriconazole has shown some promise and is becoming increasingly used in cement spacers: it has been shown to have predictable elution in vitro and determines only a mild reduction in compressive strength [103].
In addition, there is no agreement on the choice of optimal medical treatment. The choice of antifungal agent should be driven by local patterns of resistance and patient factors [3,30]. Fluconazole and amphotericin B are agents characterized by good bone penetration and are effective against most fungi [17,78]. Unfortunately, they have several side effects, especially in patients with renal and hepatic impairment. Echinocandins, such as micafungin, caspofungin, and anidulafungin, have a more tolerable side effect profile [101]. There is also no single consensus regarding the duration of antifungal administration. In consideration of the indolent nature of fPJIs, the ideal interval between implant removal and reimplantation are unknown. For patients who are not candidates for surgery, lifelong suppressive therapy with oral antifungals, such as fluconazole, is mandatory [3,104]. For Candida infections, the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease recommends implant removal with at least 14 days of parenteral antifungals followed by a subsequent minimum of 4 to 6 weeks of oral agents [105,106]. In the case of two-stage exchange, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) recommends a minimum of 6 weeks treatment after prosthesis removal [107]. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend between 6 and 12 months [10]. A meta-analysis by Ueng et al. [11]. identified improved eradication of infection with prolonged systemic therapy from three to six months. However, Anagnostakos et al. [15] suggested that 6 weeks of administration of an antifungal agent can be sufficient. Reduced susceptibility of fungal organisms to antifungal agents has become an area of interest, with resistance being described in fPJI [52,108], particularly azole resistance in Candida PJI [67,109].
There are several limitations to this study. Many of the included studies are case reports or small case series. There is a real lack of long-term data on fungal PJI, with many series not reporting the outcome [17,110,111]. Additionally, many series used different outcome measurements. Moreover, the heterogeneity of reported pathogens does not allow for the determination of the correlation between pathogen type and treatment outcomes.
In conclusion, fungal PJI is a rare complication compared to bacteria PJI. The present literature review highlights the extreme heterogeneity in the reported treatments of fungal prosthetic joint infections. In particular, the most conspicuous discrepancies emerge in medical management both in terms of drug of choice and length of treatments. A two-stage revision arthroplasty is generally suggested for fPJI, considering it usually presents as delayed or late infection. Nonetheless, success rates were less favorable than in bacterial PJI, and patients affected by fPJI treated with a two-stage exchange protocol were more likely to relapse compared with patients with bacterial PJI that underwent the same treatment. The need for multicenter, prospective studies to provide standardized protocols and to improve the treatment of fungal PJI clearly emerges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., M.F. (Michele Fiore) and S.T.; methodology, M.F. (Matteo Filippini) and M.B.; formal analysis, R.Z. and M.F. (Matteo Filippini); data curation, R.Z., E.Z. and A.P. writing—original draft preparation, A.S., S.T. and M.F. (Michele Fiore); writing—review and editing, A.S. and E.Z.; supervision, P.V. and M.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not required for review articles.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pulido, L.; Ghanem, E.; Joshi, A.; Purtill, J.J.; Parvizi, J. Periprosthetic joint infection: The incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2008, 466, 1710–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Koh, C.K.; Zeng, I.; Ravi, S.; Zhu, M.; Vince, K.G.; Young, S.W. Periprosthetic Joint Infection Is the Main Cause of Failure for Modern Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 11,134 Knees. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 2194–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Azzam, K.; Parvizi, J.; Jungkind, D.; Hanssen, A.; Fehring, T.; Springer, B.; Bozic, K.; Della Valle, C.; Pulido, L.; Barrack, R. Microbiological, clinical, and surgical features of fungal prosthetic joint infections: A multi-institutional experience. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2009, 91 (Suppl. S6), 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Theil, C.; Schmidt-Braekling, T.; Gosheger, G.; Idelevich, E.A.; Moellenbeck, B.; Dieckmann, R. Fungal prosthetic joint infection in total hip or knee arthroplasty: A retrospective single-centre study of 26 cases. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hwang, B.-H.; Yoon, J.-Y.; Nam, C.-H.; Jung, K.-A.; Lee, S.-C.; Han, C.-D.; Moon, S.-H. Fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection after primary total knee replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2012, 94, 656–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nace, J.; Siddiqi, A.; Talmo, C.T.; Chen, A.F. Diagnosis and Management of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infections. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2019, 27, e804–e818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Basu, S.; Bose, C.; Ojha, N.; Das, N.; Das, J.; Pal, M.; Khurana, S. Evolution of bacterial and fungal growth media. Bioinformation 2015, 11, 182–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sidhu, M.S.; Cooper, G.; Jenkins, N.; Jeys, L.; Parry, M.; Stevenson, J.D. Prosthetic fungal infections: Poor prognosis with bacterial co-infection. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Henry, M.W.; Miller, A.O.; Walsh, T.J.; Brause, B.D. Fungal Musculoskeletal Infections. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 31, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pappas, P.G.; Kauffman, C.A.; Andes, D.R.; Clancy, C.J.; Marr, K.A.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Reboli, A.C.; Schuster, M.G.; Vazquez, J.A.; Walsh, T.J.; et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 62, e1–e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ueng, S.W.; Lee, C.Y.; Hu, C.C.; Hsieh, P.H.; Chang, Y. What is the success of treatment of hip and knee candidal periprosthetic joint infection? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 3002–3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Merrer, J.; Dupont, B.; Nieszkowska, A.; De Jonghe, B.; Outin, H. Candida albicans prosthetic arthritis treated with fluconazole alone. J. Infect. 2001, 42, 208–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wyman, J.; McGough, R.; Limbird, R. Fungal infection of a total knee prosthesis: Successful treatment using articulating cement spacers and staged reimplantation. Orthopedics 2002, 25, 1391–1394; discussion 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, M.H.; Hsu, K.Y. Candidal arthritis in revision knee arthroplasty successfully treated with sequential parenteral-oral fluconazole and amphotericin B-loaded cement spacer. Knee Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2011, 19, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Anagnostakos, K.; Kelm, J.; Schmitt, E.; Jung, J. Fungal periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections clinical experience with a 2-stage treatment protocol. J. Arthroplast. 2012, 27, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cobo, F.; Rodríguez-Granger, J.; Sampedro, A.; Aliaga-Martínez, L.; Navarro-Marí, J.M. Prosthetic Joint Infection. A Review of Treatment Methods. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2017, 2, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Kuiper, J.W.; van den Bekerom, M.P.; van der Stappen, J.; Nolte, P.A.; Colen, S. 2-stage revision recommended for treatment of fungal hip and knee prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2013, 84, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Belden, K.; Cao, L.; Chen, J.; Deng, T.; Fu, J.; Guan, H.; Jia, C.; Kong, X.; Kuo, F.-C.; Li, R.; et al. Hip and Knee Section, Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection, Diagnosis and Treatment: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S387–S391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available online: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  22. Mafrachi, B.W.; Debei, A.H.A.; Muhtaseb, F.M.A.; Al-Ajlouni, J.M.; Hammad, Y.S. Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report. J. Orthop. Case Rep. 2021, 11, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ornell, S.S.; Dang, K.H.; Bois, A.J.; Dutta, A.K. Fungal Infection following Total Elbow Arthroplasty. Case Rep. Orthop. 2019, 2019, 7927914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kurmis, A.P. Eradicating Fungal Periprosthetic TKA “Super-infection”: Review of the Contemporary Literature and Consideration of Antibiotic-Impregnated Dissolving Calcium Sulfate Beads as a Novel PJI Treatment Adjunct. Arthroplast. Today 2021, 8, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bartash, R.; Guo, Y.; Pope, J.B.; Levi, M.H.; Szymczak, W.; Saraiya, N.; Nori, P. Periprosthetic hip joint infection with Aspergillus terreus: A clinical case and a review of the literature. Med. Mycol. Case Rep. 2017, 18, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hasan, R.; Kumar, S.; Mathew, M.; Shivamurthy, A.; Nayal, B. Aspergillosis Causing Delayed Implant Loosening in a Case of Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report with Review of Literature. Int. J. Sci. Stud. 2015, 2, 215–217. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yilmaz, M.; Mete, B.; Özaras, R.; Kaynak, G.; Tabak, F.; Tenekecioğlu, Y.; Öztürk, R. Aspergillus fumigatus infection as a delayed manifestation of prosthetic knee arthroplasty and a review of the literature. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2011, 43, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Baumann, P.A.; Cunningham, B.; Patel, N.S.; Finn, H.A. Aspergillus fumigatus infection in a mega prosthetic total knee arthroplasty: Salvage by staged reimplantation with 5-year follow-up. J. Arthroplast. 2001, 16, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Austin, K.S.; Testa, N.N.; Luntz, R.K.; Greene, J.B.; Smiles, S. Aspergillus infection of total knee arthroplasty presenting as a popliteal cyst. Case report and review of the literature. J. Arthroplast. 1992, 7, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cobo, F.; Rodríguez-Granger, J.; López, E.M.; Jiménez, G.; Sampedro, A.; Aliaga-Martínez, L.; Navarro-Marí, J.M. Candida-induced prosthetic joint infection. A literature review including 72 cases and a case report. Infect. Dis. 2017, 49, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kelesidis, T.; Tsiodras, S. Candida albicans prosthetic hip infection in elderly patients: Is fluconazole monotherapy an option? Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 42, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bland, C.M.; Thomas, S. Micafungin plus fluconazole in an infected knee with retained hardware due to Candida albicans. Ann. Pharmacother. 2009, 43, 528–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gaston, G.; Ogden, J. Candida glabrata periprosthetic infection: A case report and literature review. J. Arthroplast. 2004, 19, 927–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lackner, M.; De Man, F.H.; Eygendaal, D.; Wintermans, R.G.F.; Kluytmans, J.A.; Klaassen, C.H.; Meis, J.F. Severe prosthetic joint infection in an immunocompetent male patient due to a therapy refractory Pseudallescheria apiosperma. Mycoses 2011, 54 (Suppl. S3), 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Johannsson, B.; Callaghan, J.J. Prosthetic hip infection due to Cryptococcus neoformans: Case report. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2009, 64, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gottesman-Yekutieli, T.; Shwartz, O.; Edelman, A.; Hendel, D.; Dan, M. Pseudallescheria boydii infection of a prosthetic hip joint—An uncommon infection in a rare location. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2011, 342, 250–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fowler, V.G.; Nacinovich, F.M.; Alspaugh, J.A.; Corey, G.R. Prosthetic joint infection due to Histoplasma capsulatum: Case report and review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1998, 26, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. DeHart, D.J. Use of itraconazole for treatment of sporotrichosis involving a knee prosthesis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1995, 21, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Deelstra, J.J.; Neut, D.; Jutte, P.C. Successful treatment of Candida albicans-infected total hip prosthesis with staged procedure using an antifungal-loaded cement spacer. J. Arthroplast. 2013, 28, 374.e5–374.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Austen, S.; van der Weegen, W.; Verduin, C.M.; van der Valk, M.; Hoekstra, H.J. Coccidioidomycosis infection of a total knee arthroplasty in a nonendemic region. J. Arthroplast. 2013, 28, 375.e13–375.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nayeri, F.; Cameron, R.; Chryssanthou, E.; Johansson, L.; Söderström, C. Candida glabrata prosthesis infection following pyelonephritis and septicaemia. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 1997, 29, 635–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marra, F.; Robbins, G.M.; A Masri, B.; Duncan, C.; Wasan, K.M.; Kwong, E.H.; Jewesson, P.J. Amphotericin B-loaded bone cement to treat osteomyelitis caused by Candida albicans. Can. J. Surg. 2001, 44, 383–386. [Google Scholar]
  43. Açikgöz, Z.C.; Sayli, U.; Avci, S.; Doğruel, H.; Gamberzade, S. An extremely uncommon infection: Candida glabrata arthritis after total knee arthroplasty. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2002, 34, 394–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Reddy, K.J.; Shah, J.D.; Kale, R.V.; Reddy, T.J. Fungal prosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. Indian J. Orthop. 2013, 47, 526–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhu, Y.; Yue, C.; Huang, Z.; Pei, F. Candida glabrata infection following total hip arthroplasty: A case report. Exp. Ther. Med. 2014, 7, 352–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Fukasawa, N.; Shirakura, K. Candida arthritis after total knee arthroplasty—A case of successful treatment without prosthesis removal. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1997, 68, 306–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Wada, M.; Baba, H.; Imura, S. Prosthetic knee Candida parapsilosis infection. J. Arthroplast. 1998, 13, 479–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lazzarini, L.; Manfrin, V.; De Lalla, F. Candidal prosthetic hip infection in a patient with previous candidal septic arthritis. J. Arthroplast. 2004, 19, 248–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Artiaco, S.; Ferrero, A.; Boggio, F.; Colzani, G. Pseudotumor of the Hip due to Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infection. Case Rep. Orthop. 2013, 2013, 502728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Jenny, J.Y.; Goukodadja, O.; Boeri, C.; Gaudias, J. May one-stage exchange for Candida albicans peri-prosthetic infection be successful? Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2016, 102, 127–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Paul, J.; White, S.H.; Nicholls, K.M.; Crook, D.W. Prosthetic joint infection due to Candida parapsilosis in the UK: Case report and literature review. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1992, 11, 847–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Selmon, G.P.; Slater, R.N.; Shepperd, J.A.; Wright, E.P. Successful 1-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty for fungal infection. J. Arthroplast. 1998, 13, 114–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ramamohan, N.; Zeineh, N.; Grigoris, P.; Butcher, I. Candida glabrata infection after total hip arthroplasty. J. Infect. 2001, 42, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bruce, A.S.; Kerry, R.M.; Norman, P.; Stockley, I. Fluconazole-impregnated beads in the management of fungal infection of prosthetic joints. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2001, 83, 183–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lidder, S.; Tasleem, A.; Masterson, S.; Carrington, R.W. Candida tropicalis: Diagnostic dilemmas for an unusual prosthetic hip infection. BMJ Mil. Health 2013, 159, 123–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yang, S.H.; Pao, J.L.; Hang, Y.S. Staged reimplantation of total knee arthroplasty after Candida infection. J. Arthroplast. 2001, 16, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lichtman, E.A. Candida infection of a prosthetic shoulder joint. Skelet. Radiol. 1983, 10, 176–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lambertus, M.; Thordarson, D.; Goetz, M.B. Fungal prosthetic arthritis: Presentation of two cases and review of the literature. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1988, 10, 1038–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tunkel, A.R.; Thomas, C.Y.; Wispelwey, B. Candida prosthetic arthritis: Report of a case treated with fluconazole and review of the literature. Am. J. Med. 1993, 94, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cushing, R.D.; Fulgenzi, W.R. Synovial fluid levels of fluconazole in a patient with Candida parapsilosis prosthetic joint infection who had an excellent clinical response. J. Arthroplast. 1997, 12, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Simonian, P.T.; Brause, B.D.; Wickiewicz, T.L. Candida infection after total knee arthroplasty. Management without resection or amphotericin B. J. Arthroplast. 1997, 12, 825–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brooks, D.H.; Pupparo, F. Successful salvage of a primary total knee arthroplasty infected with Candida parapsilosis. J. Arthroplast. 1998, 13, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Geng, L.; Xu, M.; Yu, L.; Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J. Risk factors and the clinical and surgical features of fungal prosthetic joint infections: A retrospective analysis of eight cases. Exp. Ther. Med. 2016, 12, 991–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Wang, Q.-J.; Shen, H.; Zhang, X.-L.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Shao, J.-J. Staged reimplantation for the treatment of fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection following primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2015, 101, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Kim, J.K.; Lee, D.Y.; Kang, D.W.; Ro, D.H.; Lee, M.C.; Han, H.S. Efficacy of antifungal-impregnated cement spacer against chronic fungal periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2018, 25, 631–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. George, J.C.; Sainulabdeen, J.; Chittaranjan, S.; George, K.; Babu, S. Single-Stage Revision With Fluconazole Monotherapy in Fungal Prosthetic Knee Joint Infections. Arthroplast. Today 2021, 7, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Graw, B.; Woolson, S.; Huddleston, J.I. Candida infection in total knee arthroplasty with successful reimplantation. J. Knee Surg. 2010, 23, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Phelan, D.M.; Osmon, D.R.; Keating, M.R.; Hanssen, A.D. Delayed reimplantation arthroplasty for candidal prosthetic joint infection: A report of 4 cases and review of the literature. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002, 34, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Dutronc, H.; Dauchy, F.A.; Cazanave, C.; Rougie, C.; Lafarie-Castet, S.; Couprie, B.; Fabre, T.; Dupon, M. Candida prosthetic infections: Case series and literature review. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 42, 890–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Darouiche, R.O.; Hamill, R.J.; Musher, D.M.; Young, E.J.; Harris, R.L. Periprosthetic candidal infections following arthroplasty. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1989, 11, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Klatte, T.O.; Kendoff, D.; Kamath, A.F.; Jonen, V.; Rueger, J.M.; Frommelt, L.; Gebauer, M.; Gehrke, T. Single-stage revision for fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection: A single-centre experience. Bone Jt. J. 2014, 96, 492–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Baecker, H.; Frieler, S.; Geßmann, J.; Pauly, S.; Schildhauer, T.A.; Hanusrichter, Y. Three-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of fungal periprosthetic joint infection: Outcome analysis of a novel treatment algorithm: A prospective study. Bone Jt. Open 2021, 2, 671–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Enz, A.; Mueller, S.C.; Warnke, P.; Ellenrieder, M.; Mittelmeier, W.; Klinder, A. Periprosthetic Fungal Infections in Severe Endoprosthetic Infections of the Hip and Knee Joint-A Retrospective Analysis of a Certified Arthroplasty Centre of Excellence. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Brown, T.S.; Petis, S.M.; Osmon, D.R.; Mabry, T.M.; Berry, D.J.; Hanssen, A.D.; Abdel, M.P. Periprosthetic Joint Infection With Fungal Pathogens. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 2605–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Riaz, T.; Tande, A.J.; Steed, L.L.; Demos, H.A.; Salgado, C.D.; Osmon, D.R.; Marculescu, C.E. Risk Factors for Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infection. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2020, 5, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Gao, Z.; Li, X.; Du, Y.; Peng, Y.; Wu, W.; Zhou, Y. Success Rate of Fungal Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection Treated by 2-Stage Revision and Potential Risk Factors of Treatment Failure: A Retrospective Study. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 5549–5557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gebauer, M.; Frommelt, L.; Achan, P.; Board, T.N.; Conway, J.; Griffin, W.; Heidari, N.; Kerr, G.; McLaren, A.; Nelson, S.B.; et al. Management of fungal or atypical periprosthetic joint infections. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29 (Suppl. S2), 112–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bariteau, J.T.; Waryasz, G.R.; McDonnell, M.; Fischer, S.A.; Hayda, R.A.; Born, C.T. Fungal osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2014, 22, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kao, A.S.; Brandt, M.E.; Pruitt, W.R.; Conn, L.A.; Perkins, B.A.; Stephens, D.S.; Baughman, W.S.; Reingold, A.L.; Rothrock, G.A.; Pfaller, M.A.; et al. The epidemiology of candidemia in two United States cities: Results of a population-based active surveillance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1999, 29, 1164–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ji, B.; Zhang, X.; Xu, B.; Guo, W.; Mu, W.; Cao, L. Single-Stage Revision for Chronic Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Average of 5 Years of Follow-Up. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 2523–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Benito, N.; Franco, M.; Ribera, A.; Soriano, A.; Rodriguez-Pardo, D.; Sorlí, L.; Fresco, G.; Fernández-Sampedro, M.; Dolores del Toro, M.; Guío, L.; et al. Time trends in the aetiology of prosthetic joint infections: A multicentre cohort study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, e1–e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Faschingbauer, M.; Bieger, R.; Kappe, T.; Weiner, C.; Freitag, T.; Reichel, H. Difficult to treat: Are there organism-dependent differences and overall risk factors in success rates for two-stage knee revision? Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2020, 140, 1595–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Fernandes, A.; Dias, M. The Microbiological Profiles of Infected Prosthetic Implants with an Emphasis on the Organisms which Form Biofilms. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2013, 7, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Romanò, C.L.; Al Khawashki, H.; Benzakour, T.; Bozhkova, S.; del Sel, H.; Hafez, M.; Johari, A.; Lob, G.; Sharma, H.K.; Tsuchiya, H.; et al. The W.A.I.O.T. Definition of High-Grade and Low-Grade Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Parvizi, J.; Tan, T.L.; Goswami, K.; Higuera, C.; Della Valle, C.; Chen, A.F.; Shohat, N. The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1309–1314.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bracken, C.D.; Berbari, E.F.; Hanssen, A.D.; Mabry, T.M.; Osmon, D.R.; Sierra, R.J. Systemic inflammatory markers and aspiration cell count may not differentiate bacterial from fungal prosthetic infections. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 3291–3294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Pérez-Prieto, D.; Portillo, M.E.; Puig-Verdié, L.; Alier, A.; Martínez, S.; Sorlí, L.; Horcajada, J.P.; Monllau, J.C. C-reactive protein may misdiagnose prosthetic joint infections, particularly chronic and low-grade infections. Int. Orthop. 2017, 41, 1315–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shohat, N.; Tan, T.L.; Della Valle, C.J.; Calkins, T.E.; George, J.; Higuera, C.; Parvizi, J. Development and Validation of an Evidence-Based Algorithm for Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 2730–2736.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Verweij, P.E.; Arendrup, M.C.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Bille, J.; Donnelly, J.P.; Jensen, H.E.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Richardson, M.D.; Akova, M.; et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: Diagnostic procedures. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18 (Suppl. S7), 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. McNally, M.; Govaert, G.; Dudareva, M.; Morgenstern, M.; Metsemakers, W.J. Definition and diagnosis of fracture-related infection. EFORT Open Rev. 2020, 5, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chandra, J.; Kuhn, D.M.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Hoyer, L.L.; McCormick, T.; Ghannoum, M.A. Biofilm formation by the fungal pathogen Candida albicans: Development, architecture, and drug resistance. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 5385–5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Kuhn, D.M.; Chandra, J.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Ghannoum, M.A. Comparison of biofilms formed by Candida albicans and Candida parapsilosis on bioprosthetic surfaces. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 878–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Karczewski, D.; Khakzad, T.; Kriechling, P.; Akgün, D. Aspergillus PJI—A systematic analysis of all known cases and report of a new one. J. Mycol. Med. 2021, 31, 101141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Shirtliff, M.E.; Peters, B.M.; Jabra-Rizk, M.A. Cross-kingdom interactions: Candida albicans and bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2009, 299, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Fox, E.P.; Cowley, E.S.; Nobile, C.J.; Hartooni, N.; Newman, D.K.; Johnson, A.D. Anaerobic bacteria grow within Candida albicans biofilms and induce biofilm formation in suspension cultures. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 2411–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. van Merode, A.E.; Pothoven, D.C.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J.; Krom, B.P. Surface charge influences enterococcal prevalence in mixed-species biofilms. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 102, 1254–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kong, E.F.; Tsui, C.; Kucharíková, S.; Andes, D.; Van Dijck, P.; Jabra-Rizk, M.A. Commensal Protection of Staphylococcus aureus against Antimicrobials by Candida albicans Biofilm Matrix. mBio 2016, 7, e01365-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Cornely, O.A.; Bassetti, M.; Calandra, T.; Garbino, J.; Kullberg, B.J.; Lortholary, O.; Meersseman, W.; Akova, M.; Arendrup, M.C.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: Non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18 (Suppl. S7), 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Haleem, A.A.; Berry, D.J.; Hanssen, A.D. Mid-term to long-term followup of two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kweon, C.; McLaren, A.C.; Leon, C.; McLemore, R. Amphotericin B delivery from bone cement increases with porosity but strength decreases. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 3002–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Gross, C.E.; Della Valle, C.J.; Rex, J.C.; Traven, S.A.; Durante, E.C. Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Review of Demographics and Management. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 1758–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Cunningham, B.; McLaren, A.C.; Pauken, C.; McLemore, R. Liposomal formulation increases local delivery of amphotericin from bone cement: A pilot study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2012, 470, 2671–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Miller, R.B.; McLaren, A.C.; Pauken, C.; Clarke, H.D.; McLemore, R. Voriconazole is delivered from antifungal-loaded bone cement. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Escolà-Vergé, L.; Rodríguez-Pardo, D.; Lora-Tamayo, J.; Morata, L.; Murillo, O.; Vilchez, H.; Sorli, L.; Carrión, L.G.; Barbero, J.M.; Palomino-Nicás, J.; et al. Candida periprosthetic joint infection: A rare and difficult-to-treat infection. J. Infect. 2018, 77, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Izakovicova, P.; Borens, O.; Trampuz, A. Periprosthetic joint infection: Current concepts and outlook. EFORT Open Rev. 2019, 4, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ullmann, A.J.; Aguado, J.M.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Denning, D.W.; Groll, A.H.; Lagrou, K.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Lewis, R.E.; Munoz, P.; Verweij, P.E.; et al. Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: Executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24 (Suppl. S1), e1–e38. [Google Scholar]
  107. Parvizi, J.; Gehrke, T.; Chen, A.F. Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Bone Jt. J. 2013, 95, 1450–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Lewis, R.E. Antifungal drug resistance of pathogenic fungi. Lancet 2002, 359, 1135–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Carrega, G.; Cavagnaro, L.; Basso, M.; Riccio, G.; Ronca, A.; Salomone, C.; Burastero, G. Azole-resistant Candida albicans prosthetic joint infection treated with prolonged administration of anidulafungin and two-stage exchange with implant of a mega-prosthesis. J. Chemother. 2017, 29, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Schoof, B.; Jakobs, O.; Schmidl, S.; Klatte, T.O.; Frommelt, L.; Gehrke, T.; Gebauer, M. Fungal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip: A systematic review. Orthop. Rev. 2015, 7, 5748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jakobs, O.; Schoof, B.; Klatte, T.O.; Schmidl, S.; Fensky, F.; Guenther, D.; Frommelt, L.; Gehrke, T.; Gebauer, M. Fungal periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Orthop. Rev. 2015, 7, 5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sambri, A.; Zunarelli, R.; Fiore, M.; Bortoli, M.; Paolucci, A.; Filippini, M.; Zamparini, E.; Tedeschi, S.; Viale, P.; De Paolis, M. Epidemiology of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010084

AMA Style

Sambri A, Zunarelli R, Fiore M, Bortoli M, Paolucci A, Filippini M, Zamparini E, Tedeschi S, Viale P, De Paolis M. Epidemiology of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(1):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010084

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sambri, Andrea, Renato Zunarelli, Michele Fiore, Marta Bortoli, Azzurra Paolucci, Matteo Filippini, Eleonora Zamparini, Sara Tedeschi, Pierluigi Viale, and Massimiliano De Paolis. 2023. "Epidemiology of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature" Microorganisms 11, no. 1: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010084

APA Style

Sambri, A., Zunarelli, R., Fiore, M., Bortoli, M., Paolucci, A., Filippini, M., Zamparini, E., Tedeschi, S., Viale, P., & De Paolis, M. (2023). Epidemiology of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Microorganisms, 11(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010084

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop