BACKGROUND: Culturing of samples of periprosthetic tissue is the standard method used for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection, but this method is neither sensitive nor specific. In prosthetic-joint infection, microorganisms are typically present in a biofilm on the surface of the prosthesis. We hypothesized that culturing of samples obtained from the prosthesis would improve the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial comparing culture of samples obtained by sonication of explanted hip and knee prostheses to dislodge adherent bacteria from the prosthesis with conventional culture of periprosthetic tissue for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection among patients undergoing hip or knee revision or resection arthroplasty. RESULTS: We studied 331 patients with total knee prostheses (207 patients) or hip prostheses (124 patients); 252 patients had aseptic failure, and 79 had prosthetic-joint infection. With the use of standardized nonmicrobiologic criteria to define prosthetic-joint infection, the sensitivities of periprosthetic-tissue and sonicate-fluid cultures were 60.8% and 78.5% (P<0.001), respectively, and the specificities were 99.2% and 98.8%, respectively. Fourteen cases of prosthetic-joint infection were detected by sonicate-fluid culture but not by prosthetic-tissue culture. In patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within 14 days before surgery, the sensitivities of periprosthetic tissue and sonicate-fluid culture were 45.0% and 75.0% (P<0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, culture of samples obtained by sonication of prostheses was more sensitive than conventional periprosthetic-tissue culture for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic hip and knee infection, especially in patients who had received antimicrobial therapy within 14 days before surgery. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
BACKGROUND: Culturing of samples of periprosthetic tissue is the standard method used for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection, but this method is neither sensitive nor specific. In prosthetic-joint infection, microorganisms are typically present in a biofilm on the surface of the prosthesis. We hypothesized that culturing of samples obtained from the prosthesis would improve the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial comparing culture of samples obtained by sonication of explanted hip and knee prostheses to dislodge adherent bacteria from the prosthesis with conventional culture of periprosthetic tissue for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection among patients undergoing hip or knee revision or resection arthroplasty. RESULTS: We studied 331 patients with total knee prostheses (207 patients) or hip prostheses (124 patients); 252 patients had aseptic failure, and 79 had prosthetic-joint infection. With the use of standardized nonmicrobiologic criteria to define prosthetic-joint infection, the sensitivities of periprosthetic-tissue and sonicate-fluid cultures were 60.8% and 78.5% (P<0.001), respectively, and the specificities were 99.2% and 98.8%, respectively. Fourteen cases of prosthetic-joint infection were detected by sonicate-fluid culture but not by prosthetic-tissue culture. In patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within 14 days before surgery, the sensitivities of periprosthetic tissue and sonicate-fluid culture were 45.0% and 75.0% (P<0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, culture of samples obtained by sonication of prostheses was more sensitive than conventional periprosthetic-tissue culture for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic hip and knee infection, especially in patients who had received antimicrobial therapy within 14 days before surgery. Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Authors: Paschalis Vergidis; Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Bernard F Morrey; Scott P Steinmann; Melissa J Karau; Douglas R Osmon; Jayawant N Mandrekar; James M Steckelberg; Robin Patel Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Sunghwan Kim; Robert Greenleaf; Mark Carl Miller; Latha Satish; Sandeep Kathju; Garth Ehrlich; J Christopher Post; Nicholas G Sotereanos; Paul Stoodley Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: M Marín; J M Garcia-Lechuz; P Alonso; M Villanueva; L Alcalá; M Gimeno; E Cercenado; M Sánchez-Somolinos; C Radice; E Bouza Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Edward M Greenfield; Michelle A Beidelschies; Joscelyn M Tatro; Victor M Goldberg; Amy G Hise Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Davud Malekzadeh; Douglas R Osmon; Brian D Lahr; Arlen D Hanssen; Elie F Berbari Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: M P Riggio; Kate E Dempsey; Allan Lennon; David Allan; Gordon Ramage; Jeremy Bagg Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2010-05-08 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Hany Bedair; Nicholas Ting; Christina Jacovides; Arjun Saxena; Mario Moric; Javad Parvizi; Craig J Della Valle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Shawn Vasoo; Jeramy J Schwab; Scott A Cunningham; Trisha J Robinson; Joseph R Cass; Elie F Berbari; Randall C Walker; Douglas R Osmon; Robin Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 5.948