Cargando…
Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prosthetic-joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of arthroplasty, and accurate identification of a potentially responsible microorganism is essential for successful antibiotic treatment. We therefore determined the diagnostic accuracy of sonication and compar...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434598/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1300021 |
_version_ | 1783237079772168192 |
---|---|
author | Van Diek, Floor M Albers, Christiaan G M Van Hooff, Miranda L Meis, Jacques F Goosen, Jon H M |
author_facet | Van Diek, Floor M Albers, Christiaan G M Van Hooff, Miranda L Meis, Jacques F Goosen, Jon H M |
author_sort | Van Diek, Floor M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prosthetic-joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of arthroplasty, and accurate identification of a potentially responsible microorganism is essential for successful antibiotic treatment. We therefore determined the diagnostic accuracy of sonication and compared it with tissue culture as a screening tool in detecting prosthetic joint infection in revision arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 252 consecutive revision arthroplasty cases were enrolled. These cases were determined as being suspected or unsuspected of having infection according to standard criteria. Perioperatively, 6 periprosthetic interface tissue biopsies were obtained from each patient and the implants removed were sonicated. The sensitivity and specificity of periprosthetic tissue culture and sonication fluid cultures were determined. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 75 revision cases were classified as having PJI (33 early and 42 late) and 177 were unsuspected of having infection. Compared with tissue culture, the sensitivity of the sonication fluid analysis was low: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35–0.59) for sonication as compared to 0.68 (95% CI: 0.56–0.78) for tissue culture. The specificity of the sonication fluid analysis was higher than that for tissue culture: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96–1.0) as compared to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74–0.86). INTERPRETATION: Sonication is a highly specific test for diagnosis of PJI. However, due to the low sensitivity, a negative sonication result does not rule out the presence of PJI. Thus, sonication is not of value for screening of microorganisms during revision surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5434598 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54345982017-06-01 Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery Van Diek, Floor M Albers, Christiaan G M Van Hooff, Miranda L Meis, Jacques F Goosen, Jon H M Acta Orthop Knee BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prosthetic-joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication of arthroplasty, and accurate identification of a potentially responsible microorganism is essential for successful antibiotic treatment. We therefore determined the diagnostic accuracy of sonication and compared it with tissue culture as a screening tool in detecting prosthetic joint infection in revision arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 252 consecutive revision arthroplasty cases were enrolled. These cases were determined as being suspected or unsuspected of having infection according to standard criteria. Perioperatively, 6 periprosthetic interface tissue biopsies were obtained from each patient and the implants removed were sonicated. The sensitivity and specificity of periprosthetic tissue culture and sonication fluid cultures were determined. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 75 revision cases were classified as having PJI (33 early and 42 late) and 177 were unsuspected of having infection. Compared with tissue culture, the sensitivity of the sonication fluid analysis was low: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35–0.59) for sonication as compared to 0.68 (95% CI: 0.56–0.78) for tissue culture. The specificity of the sonication fluid analysis was higher than that for tissue culture: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96–1.0) as compared to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74–0.86). INTERPRETATION: Sonication is a highly specific test for diagnosis of PJI. However, due to the low sensitivity, a negative sonication result does not rule out the presence of PJI. Thus, sonication is not of value for screening of microorganisms during revision surgery. Taylor & Francis 2017-06 2017-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5434598/ /pubmed/28287012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1300021 Text en © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) |
spellingShingle | Knee Van Diek, Floor M Albers, Christiaan G M Van Hooff, Miranda L Meis, Jacques F Goosen, Jon H M Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title | Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title_full | Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title_fullStr | Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title_short | Low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
title_sort | low sensitivity of implant sonication when screening for infection in revision surgery |
topic | Knee |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434598/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1300021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandiekfloorm lowsensitivityofimplantsonicationwhenscreeningforinfectioninrevisionsurgery AT alberschristiaangm lowsensitivityofimplantsonicationwhenscreeningforinfectioninrevisionsurgery AT vanhooffmirandal lowsensitivityofimplantsonicationwhenscreeningforinfectioninrevisionsurgery AT meisjacquesf lowsensitivityofimplantsonicationwhenscreeningforinfectioninrevisionsurgery AT goosenjonhm lowsensitivityofimplantsonicationwhenscreeningforinfectioninrevisionsurgery |