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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Diek, Floor M, Albers, Christiaan G M, Van Hooff, Miranda L, Meis, Jacques F, Goosen, Jon H M
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