BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) serum assays are a standard element of the diagnostic workup for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, because CRP is a marker for systemic inflammation, this test is not specific to PJI. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our purpose was to assess whether synovial fluid and serum assays alone could differentiate between infected and uninfected revision knee arthroplasties and to determine which of these methods had the greatest diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We collected synovial fluid specimens from 66 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty. Patients were judged uninfected or infected by standardized criteria. Synovial CRP levels were measured using an individual CRP assay (15 samples; 10 infected, five uninfected) and a multiplex immunoassay platform (59 samples; 25 infected, 34 uninfected). Results from preoperative standard serum CRP assays conducted were also collected (55 samples; 25 infected, 30 uninfected). Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed for each assay with a diagnosis of infection based on previously established criteria. RESULTS: Synovial CRP concentrations differed between infected and uninfected joints in the multiplex and serum analyses. The area under the curve was 0.84 for the individual assay, 0.91 for the multiplex assay, and 0.88 for the serum CRP assay. Sensitivity and specificity were 70.0% and 100.0% for the individual enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, 84.0% and 97.1% for the multiplex assay, and 76.0% and 93.3% for the serum CRP assay. CONCLUSIONS: An assay measuring CRP in synovial fluid may be more accurate in diagnosing PJI than the standard serum CRP assay. We believe such an assay holds promise as a new diagnostic marker for PJI.
BACKGROUND:C-reactive protein (CRP) serum assays are a standard element of the diagnostic workup for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, because CRP is a marker for systemic inflammation, this test is not specific to PJI. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our purpose was to assess whether synovial fluid and serum assays alone could differentiate between infected and uninfected revision knee arthroplasties and to determine which of these methods had the greatest diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We collected synovial fluid specimens from 66 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty. Patients were judged uninfected or infected by standardized criteria. Synovial CRP levels were measured using an individual CRP assay (15 samples; 10 infected, five uninfected) and a multiplex immunoassay platform (59 samples; 25 infected, 34 uninfected). Results from preoperative standard serum CRP assays conducted were also collected (55 samples; 25 infected, 30 uninfected). Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed for each assay with a diagnosis of infection based on previously established criteria. RESULTS: Synovial CRP concentrations differed between infected and uninfected joints in the multiplex and serum analyses. The area under the curve was 0.84 for the individual assay, 0.91 for the multiplex assay, and 0.88 for the serum CRP assay. Sensitivity and specificity were 70.0% and 100.0% for the individual enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, 84.0% and 97.1% for the multiplex assay, and 76.0% and 93.3% for the serum CRP assay. CONCLUSIONS: An assay measuring CRP in synovial fluid may be more accurate in diagnosing PJI than the standard serum CRP assay. We believe such an assay holds promise as a new diagnostic marker for PJI.
Authors: C J Della Valle; D M Scher; Y H Kim; C M Oxley; P Desai; J D Zuckerman; P E Di Cesare Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Charito Love; Scott E Marwin; Maria B Tomas; Eugene S Krauss; Gene G Tronco; Kuldeep K Bhargava; Kenneth J Nichols; Christopher J Palestro Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C J Della Valle; E Bogner; P Desai; J H Lonner; E Adler; J D Zuckerman; P E Di Cesare Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: B L Atkins; N Athanasou; J J Deeks; D W Crook; H Simpson; T E Peto; P McLardy-Smith; A R Berendt Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M Martinot; C Sordet; M Soubrier; X Puéchal; A Saraux; F Lioté; P Guggenbuhl; V Lègre; B Jaulhac; J-F Maillefert; M Zeisel; G Coumaros; J Sibilia Journal: Clin Exp Rheumatol Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: Javad Parvizi; Benjamin Zmistowski; Elie F Berbari; Thomas W Bauer; Bryan D Springer; Craig J Della Valle; Kevin L Garvin; Michael A Mont; Montri D Wongworawat; Charalampos G Zalavras Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Mitchel D Armstrong; Alberto V Carli; Hesham Abdelbary; Stephane Poitras; Peter Lapner; Paule E Beaulé Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Luca Maria Sconfienza; Alberto Signore; Victor Cassar-Pullicino; Maria Adriana Cataldo; Olivier Gheysens; Olivier Borens; Andrej Trampuz; Klaus Wörtler; Nicola Petrosillo; Heinz Winkler; Filip M H M Vanhoenacker; Paul C Jutte; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthew W Tetreault; Nathan G Wetters; Mario Moric; Christopher E Gross; Craig J Della Valle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Salvatore J Frangiamore; Marcelo B P Siqueira; Anas Saleh; Thomas Daly; Carlos A Higuera; Wael K Barsoum Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Sufian S Ahmad; Michael T Hirschmann; Roland Becker; Ahmed Shaker; Atesch Ateschrang; Marius J B Keel; Christoph E Albers; Lukas Buetikofer; Sithombo Maqungo; Ulrich Stöckle; Sandro Kohl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 4.342