Interpreting Positive Cutibacterium acnes Cultures in PJI

A positive Cutibacterium acnes culture can be difficult to interpret in a painful or loose arthroplasty, especially when fever and marked inflammatory findings are absent. C. acnes prosthetic joint infection usually presents with a low-grade clinical picture, and the diagnostic problem becomes most visible in shoulder arthroplasty, where the organism is recovered frequently and can also enter revision samples from a deeper cutaneous reservoir.

Summary

• C. acnes is reported most frequently in shoulder PJI and less frequently in hip and knee PJI.

• Clinical presentation is usually low-grade, with pain, stiffness, loosening, and modest inflammatory expression.

• Slow growth, biofilm formation, and intracellular persistence are consistent with delayed presentation and persistence on implant surfaces.

• Interpretation of a positive culture depends on joint context, concordance across samples, and operative findings.

• In hip infection series and revision THA, species context may extend beyond C. acnes to include C. avidum.

Why This Matters

Low-grade presentation is a defining feature of Cutibacterium acnes PJI. (Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025) Pain, stiffness, prosthesis dysfunction, and loosening are reported more consistently than fever, wound breakdown, or marked inflammatory signs. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026) In a monomicrobial cohort of 28 C. acnes PJIs, fever was absent, diagnosis followed implantation by more than 3 months in 79% of cases, pain was present in 20 cases, erythema in 5 cases, and CRP exceeded 5 mg/L in 10 cases. (Mongaret et al., 2026)

The low-grade presentation makes infection harder to distinguish from presumed aseptic failure. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026) Blood markers contribute limited diagnostic discrimination because CRP and white cell count may remain normal or only slightly elevated. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025) Microbiological findings therefore carry more weight in the overall assessment, although a positive culture alone does not establish prosthetic joint infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Thoraval et al., 2025)

What the Evidence Shows

Published joint-specific series report C. acnes more frequently in shoulder PJI than in hip or knee PJI, with lower and more variable findings in knee series. (Contreras et al., 2020; Hedlundh et al., 2021; Fröschen et al., 2022)

The table below summarises those published ranges, which should be read as descriptive study-level estimates rather than directly comparable cross-joint values or pooled estimates. (Contreras et al., 2020; Hedlundh et al., 2021; Fröschen et al., 2022)

Table. Reported range of Cutibacterium acnes in joint-specific PJI series

Table note: Values summarise the reported proportion of C. acnes within the microbiology of prosthetic joint infection for the stated joint. Denominators differ across studies, including all PJI cases, culture-positive PJI cases, postoperative arthroplasty infection cohorts, and isolate-based tertiary-referral cohorts. The ranges are descriptive study-level estimates and should not be read as directly comparable cross-joint values or pooled estimates. (Contreras et al., 2020; Hedlundh et al., 2021; Fröschen et al., 2022)

In shoulder arthroplasty, the clinical interpretation of a positive C. acnes culture is particularly difficult. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Thoraval et al., 2025)
A positive revision culture may reflect contamination of the specimen, perioperative transfer of skin flora, or established prosthetic joint infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Thoraval et al., 2025) This diagnostic uncertainty is linked to the deeper cutaneous reservoir of C. acnes in sebaceous glands and hair follicles around the shoulder, where viable organisms can persist below the skin surface despite routine skin antisepsis. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Thoraval et al., 2025)

Shoulder C. acnes PJI usually presents as a low-grade infection, which makes the clinical picture harder to interpret. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025) Pain, stiffness, loosening, or unexplained dysfunction are more common than fever, wound complications, or a marked systemic inflammatory response. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026) Serum CRP and white cell count contribute less than in prosthetic joint infections with stronger inflammatory expression because host inflammatory activation may remain modest despite persistent implant-associated infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025) The diagnostic problem therefore lies in deciding how much weight a positive culture should carry in this setting. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025)

In hip infection series, C. acnes is reported less frequently than in shoulder infection series. (Contreras et al., 2020; Hedlundh et al., 2021; Fröschen et al., 2022) Recent hip reports also suggest that C. avidum may be under-recognised as a prosthetic hip pathogen. (Achermann et al., 2018; Karlsson et al., 2024) Culture-positive revision THA data point in the same direction: C. acnes accounted for 80% of Cutibacterium-positive cases, while C. avidum accounted for 20%. Within the same series, C. avidum was associated more strongly with direct anterior approach, higher body mass index, and higher ASA score, whereas C. acnes was recovered more often during component exchange in presumed aseptic revision. (Mitterer et al., 2025)

Mechanisms Behind Delayed Presentation and Limited Inflammatory Expression

Delayed presentation of C. acnes PJI is consistent with the behaviour of a slow-growing implant-associated organism. (Thoraval et al., 2025; Mongaret et al., 2026) Most C. acnes PJIs are described as delayed or late infections rather than acute postoperative infections. (Thoraval et al., 2025)
In a monomicrobial cohort, diagnosis occurred more than 3 months after implantation in 79% of cases, and fever was absent. (Mongaret et al., 2026) This time course helps explain why C. acnes PJI may present as persistent pain, stiffness, or implant dysfunction rather than an acute postoperative septic picture. (Thoraval et al., 2025; Mongaret et al., 2026)

After attachment to implant material, C. acnes can persist on the prosthesis surface in biofilm. This may help explain why infection can remain clinically low-grade despite continued bacterial presence. (Thoraval et al., 2025; Mongaret et al., 2026) All clinical strains tested in the monomicrobial cohort formed biofilm in vitro. (Mongaret et al., 2026)

Intracellular persistence may help explain how C. acnes can remain present with limited local and systemic inflammatory response, although this remains a mechanistic explanation rather than direct clinical proof. (Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025) In vitro work in osteoblast-like cells showed internalisation of C. acnes in 75% of tested clinical strains, although the clinical contribution of this mechanism remains uncertain. (Mongaret et al., 2026; Thoraval et al., 2025)

Diagnostic Consequences

Diagnosis of C. acnes PJI depends first on how the samples were obtained and how consistently the organism appears across them. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Butler-Wu et al., 2011) A single unexpected isolate has limited diagnostic value, especially in shoulder revision surgery, where perioperative transfer from the deeper cutaneous reservoir remains plausible. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Butler-Wu et al., 2011) Repeated growth of the same organism across separate samples provides stronger microbiological support for prosthetic joint infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Butler-Wu et al., 2011) Shoulder diagnostic frameworks treat a single positive culture more cautiously, because it may reflect contamination, whereas repeated positive cultures with the same organism, together with clinical or operative signs of infection, provide stronger support for prosthetic joint infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Butler-Wu et al., 2011)

Prolonged anaerobic incubation is part of the same diagnostic problem. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011; Iqbal et al., 2024) C. acnes grows slowly, and recovery may require ten days, two weeks, or longer depending on the culture system. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011; Iqbal et al., 2024) Shorter incubation can therefore miss clinically relevant isolates. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011; Iqbal et al., 2024) Longer incubation improves recovery, though it also increases the number of positive cultures that then require clinical interpretation. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011; Iqbal et al., 2024) In a cohort of periprosthetic shoulder cultures, acute histological inflammation was present in only a minority of culture-positive cases, which is consistent with the low-grade clinical profile described in C. acnes PJI. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011) Thioglycolate broth improved sensitivity in shoulder specimens, although specificity was lower than with direct aerobic and anaerobic media. (Iqbal et al., 2024)

Adjunctive methods can support organism detection, though they do not by themselves determine whether the overall case should be classified as contamination, colonisation, or prosthetic joint infection. (Renz et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2024) Sonication releases bacteria from implant biofilm and can improve recovery in some implant-associated infections, but shoulder-specific studies have shown mixed additional value over tissue culture; tissue samples therefore remain the microbiological standard in shoulder PJI. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Renz et al., 2018) Molecular methods, including multiplex PCR, can shorten time to identification and may increase sensitivity in selected diagnostic settings. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Renz et al., 2018) These results still need clinical interpretation, because bacterial DNA detection or recovery of additional organisms does not by itself distinguish contamination, colonisation, and prosthetic joint infection. (Iqbal et al., 2024; Renz et al., 2018)

Practical Implications for Clinical Decision-Making

• A positive C. acnes culture from shoulder revision surgery carries greater interpretive uncertainty than the same finding in hip or knee arthroplasty, because organism recovery is higher and perioperative transfer from the deeper shoulder skin reservoir remains plausible. (Fink and Sevelda, 2017; Hedlundh et al., 2021; Weinstein et al., 2023; Iqbal et al., 2024)

• Persistent pain, stiffness, loosening, and prosthesis dysfunction are more consistent with the usual clinical presentation of C. acnes PJI than fever or a strongly inflammatory postoperative picture. (Mongaret et al., 2026; Iqbal et al., 2024)

• Repeated concordant cultures, together with operative findings consistent with infection, provide stronger diagnostic support than a single unexpected isolate. (Butler-Wu et al., 2011; Renz et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2024)

• In hip arthroplasty, C. avidum may also be clinically relevant, particularly in revision settings associated with direct anterior approach, higher body mass index, or intraoperative signs of infection. (Mitterer et al., 2025; Achermann et al., 2018; Wildeman et al., 2016; Karlsson et al., 2024)

Common Pitfalls

• Pitfall: A positive C. acnes culture is equated with contamination.
  Correction: Contamination is one explanation, but repeated concordant cultures, joint context, and operative findings can support true prosthetic joint infection. (Renz et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2024)

• Pitfall: Low CRP or ESR is treated as evidence against infection.
  Correction: Low-grade C. acnes PJI may present with modest marker elevation or normal inflammatory tests. (Mongaret et al., 2026; Iqbal et al., 2024)

• Pitfall: All positive Cutibacterium cultures are interpreted as if species identity does not add clinically relevant information.
  Correction: In revision THA series, C. avidum was associated more strongly with direct anterior approach, higher body mass index, and higher ASA score, and separate hip infection reports describe intraoperative signs of infection in affected cases. Together, these findings suggest that species context can change interpretation. (Mitterer et al., 2025; Achermann et al., 2018; Wildeman et al., 2016; Karlsson et al., 2024)

• Pitfall: Mechanistic findings are treated as proof of clinical causality.
  Correction: Biofilm formation and intracellular persistence support biological plausibility, although experimental models do not resolve individual clinical cases. (Thoraval et al., 2025; Mongaret et al., 2026)

Closing Note

Interpretation does not stop at recovery of Cutibacterium: it depends on presentation, joint context, concordance across samples, operative findings, and, in some settings, species context within the genus.

References

1. Iqbal A, Javaid MA, Sohail M, Khan F. A literature review of Cutibacterium acnes: from skin commensal to pathogen in shoulder surgery. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e69460. doi:10.7759/cureus.69460.

2. Thoraval L, Varin-Simon J, Ohl X, Velard F, Reffuveille F, Tang-Fichaux M. Cutibacterium acnes and its complex host interaction in prosthetic joint infections: current insights and future directions. Res Microbiol. 2025;176:104265. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2024.104265.

3. Mongaret C, Varin-Simon J, Ohl X, Fulbert B, Gangloff S, Kanagaratnam L, Reffuveille F. Unraveling the enigmatic behavior of Cutibacterium acnes: exploring clinical correlations and behaviors of clinical strains in prosthetic joint infections. Int J Microbiol. 2026;2026:8475639. doi:10.1155/ijm/8475639.

4. Fink B, Sevelda F. Periprosthetic joint infection of shoulder arthroplasties: diagnostic and treatment options. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4582756. doi:10.1155/2017/4582756.

5. Contreras ES, Frantz TL, Bishop JY, Cvetanovich GL. Periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(6):757-768. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09670-8.

6. Patel VV, Ernst SMC, Rangarajan R, Blout CK, Lee BK, Itamura JM. Validation of new shoulder periprosthetic joint infection criteria. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(7 Suppl):S71-S76. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2021.04.009.

7. Hedlundh U, Zacharatos M, Magnusson J, Gottlander M, Karlsson J. Periprosthetic hip infections in a Swedish regional hospital between 2012 and 2018: is there a relationship between Cutibacterium acnes infections and uncemented prostheses? J Bone Jt Infect. 2021;6(6):219-228. doi:10.5194/jbji-6-219-2021.

8. Bours M, Miandarbandi A, Ernst M, Thys M, El Moussaoui M, Darcis G. Postoperative hip arthroplasty infections: a monocentric retrospective study in Liège University Hospital, Belgium, 2015-2023. CMI Communications. 2025;2(4):105133. doi:10.1016/j.cmicom.2025.105133.

9. Fröschen FS, Randau TM, Franz A, Molitor E, Hischebeth GTR. Microbiological profiles of patients with periprosthetic joint infection of the hip or knee. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(7):1654. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12071654.

10. Weinstein EJ, Stephens-Shields A, Nelson SB, et al. Incidence, microbiological studies, and factors associated with prosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2340457. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40457.

11. Wei N, Baldock T, Walker R, et al. Prosthetic joint infections in shoulder and elbow: an evaluation of micro-organisms in periprosthetic shoulder and elbow joint infections across the United Kingdom. Shoulder Elbow. 2025. doi:10.1177/17585732251399804.

12. Wänström JE, Dettmer A, Björnsson Hallgren HC, Salomonsson B, Ljungquist O, Adolfsson LE. Antibiotic prophylaxis and incidence of infection following elbow arthroplasty: a nationwide study. Acta Orthop. 2025;96:278-282. doi:10.2340/17453674.2025.43288.

13. Achermann Y, Liu J, Zbinden R, et al. Propionibacterium avidum: a virulent pathogen causing hip periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(1):54-63. doi:10.1093/cid/cix665.

14. Wildeman P, Scholz CFP, Leimbach A, et al. Propionibacterium avidum as an etiological agent of prosthetic hip joint infection. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0158164. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158164.

15. Karlsson J, Kamenska N, Matuschek E, Brüggemann H, Söderquist B. Cutibacterium avidum: a potent and underestimated pathogen in prosthetic hip joint infections. Microorganisms. 2024;12(3):432. doi:10.3390/microorganisms12030432.

16. Renz N, Mudrovcic S, Perka C, Trampuz A. Orthopedic implant-associated infections caused by Cutibacterium spp. A remaining diagnostic challenge. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202639. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202639.

17. Butler-Wu SM, Burns EM, Pottinger PS, Magaret AS, Rakeman JL, Matsen FA 3rd, Cookson BT. Optimization of periprosthetic culture for diagnosis of Propionibacterium acnes prosthetic joint infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(7):2490-2495. doi:10.1128/JCM.00450-11.

18. Mitterer JA, Kinsky MR, Frank BJH, Aichmair A, Dominkus M, Hofstaetter JG. Comparison of Cutibacterium avidum versus acnes in periprosthetic hip infections: a matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2025.09.052.