H Jin1, L Yuan, C Li, Y Kan, R Hao, J Yang. 1. Nuclear Medicine Department Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University Beijing, China - nmyangjigang@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of published data regarding the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in prosthetic infection after arthroplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive computer literature search of studies published through May 31, 2012 regarding PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection on a per prosthesis-based analysis were calculated. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated to measure the accuracy of PET or PET/CT in patients with suspicious of prosthetic infection. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 838 prosthesis with suspicious of prosthetic infection after arthroplasty were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82-90%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The pooled specificity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% CI 83-89%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The area under the ROC curve was 0.93 on a per prosthesis-based analysis. CONCLUSION: In patients suspicious of prosthetic infection, FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. FDG PET or PET/CT are accurate methods in this setting. Nevertheless, possible sources of false positive results and influcing factors should kept in mind.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of published data regarding the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in prosthetic infection after arthroplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive computer literature search of studies published through May 31, 2012 regarding PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection on a per prosthesis-based analysis were calculated. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated to measure the accuracy of PET or PET/CT in patients with suspicious of prosthetic infection. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 838 prosthesis with suspicious of prosthetic infection after arthroplasty were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82-90%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The pooled specificity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% CI 83-89%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The area under the ROC curve was 0.93 on a per prosthesis-based analysis. CONCLUSION: In patients suspicious of prosthetic infection, FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. FDG PET or PET/CT are accurate methods in this setting. Nevertheless, possible sources of false positive results and influcing factors should kept in mind.
Authors: Christopher Palestro; Alicia Clark; Erin Grady; Sherif Heiba; Ora Israel; Alan Klitzke; Charito Love; Mike Sathekge; S Ted Treves; Tracy L Yarbrough Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Sufian S Ahmad; Ahmed Shaker; Mo Saffarini; Antonia F Chen; Michael T Hirschmann; Sandro Kohl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Brad Spellberg; Gloria Aggrey; Meghan B Brennan; Brent Footer; Graeme Forrest; Fergus Hamilton; Emi Minejima; Jessica Moore; Jaimo Ahn; Michael Angarone; Robert M Centor; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Jennifer Curran; Kusha Davar; Joshua Davis; Mei Qin Dong; Bassam Ghanem; Doug Hutcheon; Philipp Jent; Minji Kang; Rachael Lee; Emily G McDonald; Andrew M Morris; Rebecca Reece; Ilan S Schwartz; Miranda So; Steven Tong; Christopher Tucker; Noah Wald-Dickler; Erica J Weinstein; Riley Williams; Christina Yen; Shiwei Zhou; Todd C Lee Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Alberto Signore; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Olivier Borens; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Victor Cassar-Pullicino; Andrej Trampuz; Heinz Winkler; Olivier Gheysens; Filip M H M Vanhoenacker; Nicola Petrosillo; Paul C Jutte Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 9.236