BACKGROUND: The role of the synovial biopsy in the preoperative diagnosis of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip has not been clearly defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the value of a biopsy for a PJI is greater than that of aspiration and C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: Before revision in 100 hip endoprostheses, we obtained CRP values, aspirated the joint, and obtained five synovial biopsy samples for bacteriologic analysis and five for histologic analysis. Microbiologic and histologic analyses of the periprosthetic tissue during revision surgery were used to verify the results of the preoperative diagnostic methods. The minimum followup was 24 months (median 32; range, 24-47 months). RESULTS: Forty-five of the 100 prostheses were identified as infected. The biopsy, with a combination of the bacteriologic and histologic examinations, showed the greatest diagnostic value of all the diagnostic procedures and led to a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI, ± 11%), specificity of 98% (95% CI, ± 4%), positive predictive value of 97% (95% CI, ± 5%), negative predictive value of 87% (95% CI, ± 8.3%), and accuracy of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsy technique has a greater value than aspiration and CRP in the diagnosis of PJI of the hip (Masri et al. J Arthroplasty 22:72-78, 2007). In patients with a negative aspirate, but increased CRP or clinical signs of infection, we regard biopsy to be preferable to just repeating the aspiration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: The role of the synovial biopsy in the preoperative diagnosis of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip has not been clearly defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the value of a biopsy for a PJI is greater than that of aspiration and C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: Before revision in 100 hip endoprostheses, we obtained CRP values, aspirated the joint, and obtained five synovial biopsy samples for bacteriologic analysis and five for histologic analysis. Microbiologic and histologic analyses of the periprosthetic tissue during revision surgery were used to verify the results of the preoperative diagnostic methods. The minimum followup was 24 months (median 32; range, 24-47 months). RESULTS: Forty-five of the 100 prostheses were identified as infected. The biopsy, with a combination of the bacteriologic and histologic examinations, showed the greatest diagnostic value of all the diagnostic procedures and led to a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI, ± 11%), specificity of 98% (95% CI, ± 4%), positive predictive value of 97% (95% CI, ± 5%), negative predictive value of 87% (95% CI, ± 8.3%), and accuracy of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsy technique has a greater value than aspiration and CRP in the diagnosis of PJI of the hip (Masri et al. J Arthroplasty 22:72-78, 2007). In patients with a negative aspirate, but increased CRP or clinical signs of infection, we regard biopsy to be preferable to just repeating the aspiration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: B Kölbel; S Wienert; J Dimitriadis; D Kendoff; T Gehrke; M Huber; L Frommelt; A Tiemann; K Saeger; V Krenn Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: Thomas Hügle; André Leumann; Geert Pagenstert; Jochen Paul; Mathias Hensel; Alexej Barg; Csaba Foster-Horvath; Andrej Maria Nowakowski; Victor Valderrabano; Martin Wiewiorski Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2014-05-05
Authors: Matthias D Wimmer; Milena M Ploeger; Max J Friedrich; Thomas Hügle; Sascha Gravius; Thomas M Randau Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Mary Louise Fowler; Clara Zhu; Kevin Byrne; Sarah B Lieber; Andrew Moore; Robert H Shmerling; Ziv Paz Journal: Infection Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Rüdiger VON Eisenhart-Rothe; Heinrich Maria Laurentius Mühlhofer; Christian Suren; Susanne Feihl; Christiane Querbach; Patrick Rämer; Florian Pohlig; Jakob Thurner; Rudolf Bernard; Dirk Busch Journal: In Vivo Date: 2019 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.155