A Simple, Cost-Effective Screening Protocol to Rule Out Periprosthetic Infection
ABSTRACT The differential diagnosis of pain after total knee arthroplasty includes infection. Effective screening tools should have high sensitivity and are cost-effective. We evaluated 296 patients who underwent total knee revision at our institution. One hundred sixteen patients (39%) were classified as infected and 180 patients (61%) were considered noninfected. The mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) of the infected patients were 85 mm/h and 110 mg/L, respectively. The mean ESR and CRP of the noninfected patients were 22 mm/h and 7 mg/L, respectively. Five patients (4%) in the infected group had both normal ESR and CRP. Infection was suspected in all 5 patients, and an organism was cultured in 4 of the 5 cases. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP, when used in combination, serve as a useful screening tool in patients with a painful total knee arthroplasty.
- SourceAvailable from: Andreas Limmer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Furthermore, failure to diagnose PJI prior to revision surgery would result in one-stage revision without appropriate treatment, most likely resulting in persisting infection and recurrent implant failure. By the number of studies attempting to identify the best combination of laboratory tests predicting PJI, the recent literature has highlighted the need for improved diagnostics , , , . "
ABSTRACT: The preoperative differentiation between septic and aseptic loosening after total hip or knee arthroplasty is essential for successful therapy and relies in part on biomarkers. The objective of this study was to assess synovial and serum levels of inflammatory proteins as diagnostic tool for periprosthetic joint infection and compare their accuracy with standard tests. 120 patients presenting with a painful knee or hip endoprosthesis for surgical revision were included in this prospective trial. Blood samples and samples of intraoperatively acquired joint fluid aspirate were collected. White blood cell count, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin and interleukin-6 were determined. The joint aspirate was analyzed for total leukocyte count and IL-6. The definite diagnosis of PJI was determined on the basis of purulent synovial fluid, histopathology and microbiology. IL-6 in serum showed significantly higher values in the PJI group as compared to aseptic loosening and control, with specificity at 58.3% and a sensitivity of 79.5% at a cut-off value of 2.6 pg/ml. With a cut-off >6.6 pg/ml, the specificity increased to 88.3%. IL-6 in joint aspirate had, at a cut-off of >2100 pg/ml, a specificity of 85.7% and sensitivity of 59.4%. At levels >9000 pg/ml, specificity was almost at 100% with sensitivity just below 50%, so PJI could be considered proven with IL-6 levels above this threshold. Our data supports the published results on IL-6 as a biomarker in PJI. In our large prospective cohort of revision arthroplasty patients, the use of IL-6 in synovial fluid appears to be a more accurate marker than either the white blood cell count or the C-reactive protein level in serum for the detection of periprosthetic joint infection. On the basis of the results we recommend the use of the synovial fluid biomarker IL-6 for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty.PLoS ONE 02/2014; 9(2):e89045. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0089045 · 3.23 Impact Factor
- "Despite nonspecific, C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rates have shown sensitivity varying from 91% to 93%, respectively, and specificity varying from 86% to 83%, respectively, in patients with pain in knee arthroplasty and seem to be useful screening tools [9, 10]. "
Article: Periprosthetic Joint Infections[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Implantation of joint prostheses is becoming increasingly common, especially for the hip and knee. Infection is considered to be the most devastating of prosthesis-related complications, leading to prolonged hospitalization, repeated surgical intervention, and even definitive loss of the implant. The main risk factors to periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are advanced age, malnutrition, obesity, diabetes mellitus, HIV infection at an advanced stage, presence of distant infectious foci, and antecedents of arthroscopy or infection in previous arthroplasty. Joint prostheses can become infected through three different routes: direct implantation, hematogenic infection, and reactivation of latent infection. Gram-positive bacteria predominate in cases of PJI, mainly Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. PJIs present characteristic signs that can be divided into acute and chronic manifestations. The main imaging method used in diagnosing joint prosthesis infections is X-ray. Computed tomography (CT) scan may assist in distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening. Three-phase bone scintigraphy using technetium has high sensitivity, but low specificity. Positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) presents very divergent results in the literature. Definitive diagnosis of infection should be made by isolating the microorganism through cultures on material obtained from joint fluid puncturing, surgical wound secretions, surgical debridement procedures, or sonication fluid. Success in treating PJI depends on extensive surgical debridement and adequate and effective antibiotic therapy. Treatment in two stages using a spacer is recommended for most chronic infections in arthroplasty cases. Treatment in a single procedure is appropriate in carefully selected cases.Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases 08/2013; 2013:542796. DOI:10.1155/2013/542796
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Furthermore, no clinical/laboratory infection signs are apparent (Figure 2 (Fig. 2)). Hence the validity of laboratory parameters for diagnosing a periprosthetic infection is not entirely clarified so far , , , , , . In particular, the ESR and CRP should be within normal range or is only slightly elevated (e.g. "
ABSTRACT: Septic loosening of total hip and knee endoprostheses gains an increasing proportion of revision arthroplasties. Operative revisions of infected endoprostheses are mentally and physically wearing for the patient, challenging for the surgeon and a significant economic burden for healthcare systems. In cases of early infection within the first three weeks after implantation a one-stage revision with leaving the implant in place is widely accepted. The recommendations for the management of late infections vary by far. One-stage revisions as well as two-stage or multiple revision schedules have been reported to be successful in over 90% of all cases for certain patient collectives. But implant associated infection still remains a severe complication. Moreover, the management of late endoprosthetic infection requires specific logistics, sufficient and standardized treatment protocol, qualified manpower as well as an efficient quality management. With regard to the literature and experience of specialized orthopaedic surgeons from several university and regional hospitals we modified a commonly used treatment protocol for two-stage revision of infected total hip and knee endoprostheses. In addition to the achievement of maximum survival rate of the revision implants an optimisation of the functional outcome of the affected artificial joint is aimed for.12/2011; 6(1):Doc17. DOI:10.3205/dgkh000174