Vera Wenter1, Jan-Phillip Müller2,3, Nathalie L Albert1, Sebastian Lehner1, Wolfgang P Fendler1, Peter Bartenstein1, Clemens C Cyran4, Jan Friederichs2,3, Matthias Militz2,3, Marcus Hacker5,6, Sven Hungerer2,3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. BG Trauma Center Murnau, Murnau, Germany. 3. PMU Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 4. Institute for Clinical Radiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. marcus.hacker@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Floor 5L, 1090, Vienna, Austria. marcus.hacker@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of osteomyelitis and implant-associated infections in patients with nonspecific laboratory or radiological findings is often unsatisfactory. We retrospectively evaluated the contributions of [(18)F]FDG PET and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT to the diagnosis of osteomyelitis and implant-associated infections, enabling timely and appropriate decision-making for further therapy options. METHODS: [(18)F]FDG PET or PET/CT was performed in 215 patients with suspected osteomyelitis or implant-associated infections between 2000 and 2013. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities together and separately with reference to intraoperative microbial findings, with a mean clinical follow-up of 69 ± 49 months. RESULTS: Infections were diagnosed clinically in 101 of the 215 patients. PET and PET/CT scans revealed 87 true-positive, 76 true-negative, 38 false-positive, and 14 false-negative results, indicating a sensitivity of 86 %, a specificity of 67 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 70 %, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84 % and an accuracy of 76 %. The sensitivity of PET/CT was 88 %, but specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy (76 %, 76 %, 89 % and 82 %, respectively) were higher than those of stand-alone PET. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FDG PET is able to identify with high sensitivity the presence of osteomyelitis in orthopaedic surgery patients with nonspecific clinical symptoms of infection.
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of osteomyelitis and implant-associated infections in patients with nonspecific laboratory or radiological findings is often unsatisfactory. We retrospectively evaluated the contributions of [(18)F]FDG PET and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT to the diagnosis of osteomyelitis and implant-associated infections, enabling timely and appropriate decision-making for further therapy options. METHODS: [(18)F]FDG PET or PET/CT was performed in 215 patients with suspected osteomyelitis or implant-associated infections between 2000 and 2013. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities together and separately with reference to intraoperative microbial findings, with a mean clinical follow-up of 69 ± 49 months. RESULTS: Infections were diagnosed clinically in 101 of the 215 patients. PET and PET/CT scans revealed 87 true-positive, 76 true-negative, 38 false-positive, and 14 false-negative results, indicating a sensitivity of 86 %, a specificity of 67 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 70 %, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 84 % and an accuracy of 76 %. The sensitivity of PET/CT was 88 %, but specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy (76 %, 76 %, 89 % and 82 %, respectively) were higher than those of stand-alone PET. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]FDG PET is able to identify with high sensitivity the presence of osteomyelitis in orthopaedic surgery patients with nonspecific clinical symptoms of infection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic osteomyelitis; Implant-associated infection; Infection imaging; PET/CT; [18F]FDG PET
Authors: Demetrio Familiari; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Valeria Vitale; Daniela Prosperi; Oreste Bagni; Andrea Lenza; Marco Cavallini; Francesco Scopinaro; Alberto Signore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joseph C Harris; Dave H Caesar; Carol Davison; Rebecca Phibbs; Martin P Than Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 2.151
Authors: Marc Schiesser; Katrin D M Stumpe; Otmar Trentz; Thomas Kossmann; Gustav K Von Schulthess Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Katrin D M Stumpe; Hubert P Nötzli; Marco Zanetti; Ehab M Kamel; Thomas F Hany; Gerhard W Görres; Gustav K von Schulthess; Juerg Hodler Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tracy L Y Brown; Horace J Spencer; Karen E Beenken; Terri L Alpe; Twyla B Bartel; William Bellamy; J Michael Gruenwald; Robert A Skinner; Sandra G McLaren; Mark S Smeltzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Geertje A Govaert; Frank F IJpma; Martin McNally; Eugene McNally; Inge H Reininga; Andor W Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Vera Wenter; Nathalie L Albert; Matthias Brendel; Wolfgang P Fendler; Clemens C Cyran; Peter Bartenstein; Jan Friederichs; Jan-Philipp Müller; Matthias Militz; Marcus Hacker; Sven Hungerer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Paul C Jutte; Maria Adriana Cataldo; Victor Cassar-Pullicino; Olivier Gheysens; Olivier Borens; Andrej Trampuz; Klaus Wörtler; Nicola Petrosillo; Heinz Winkler; Alberto Signore; Luca Maria Sconfienza Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lars Husmann; Nadia Eberhard; Martin W Huellner; Bruno Ledergerber; Anna Mueller; Hannes Gruenig; Michael Messerli; Carlos-A Mestres; Zoran Rancic; Alexander Zimmermann; Barbara Hasse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379