Meeri Honkanen1,2, Esa Jämsen3,4, Matti Karppelin5, Reetta Huttunen5, Outi Lyytikäinen6, Jaana Syrjänen5,3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Tampere, PL 2000, 33521, Tampere, Finland. honkanen.meeri.p@student.uta.fi. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. honkanen.meeri.p@student.uta.fi. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. 4. Coxa, Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Tampere, PL 2000, 33521, Tampere, Finland. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is no uniform definition for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). New diagnostic criteria were formulated in an international consensus meeting in 2013 and adopted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2016. The purpose of this study is to compare the new diagnostic criteria with the old CDC criteria from the year 1992. METHODS: Patients, who had been treated for PJI of hip or knee from 2002 to 2014, in a tertiary care hospital, were identified. Patient records were reviewed by a physician to identify PJI cases fulfilling the old or new CDC criteria and to record data concerning the diagnostic criteria. PJI frequencies were calculated for the two diagnostic criteria sets. Cross tables were formed to compare the concordance between the two sets of criteria in the whole material and in different clinical subgroups. RESULTS: Overall 405 cases fulfilling either or both sets of criteria for PJI were identified. 73 (18%) of the patients fulfilled only the old criteria, whereas only one (0.2%) fulfilled only the new criteria. Of the patients who did not fulfil the new criteria, in 39 (53%) the diagnosis was based solely on the clinician's opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The number of PJIs is notably lower when using the new, more objective, diagnostic criteria. A large portion of the cases diagnosed as infection by the treating clinician, did not fulfil the new diagnostic criteria.
PURPOSE: There is no uniform definition for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). New diagnostic criteria were formulated in an international consensus meeting in 2013 and adopted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2016. The purpose of this study is to compare the new diagnostic criteria with the old CDC criteria from the year 1992. METHODS:Patients, who had been treated for PJI of hip or knee from 2002 to 2014, in a tertiary care hospital, were identified. Patient records were reviewed by a physician to identify PJI cases fulfilling the old or new CDC criteria and to record data concerning the diagnostic criteria. PJI frequencies were calculated for the two diagnostic criteria sets. Cross tables were formed to compare the concordance between the two sets of criteria in the whole material and in different clinical subgroups. RESULTS: Overall 405 cases fulfilling either or both sets of criteria for PJI were identified. 73 (18%) of the patients fulfilled only the old criteria, whereas only one (0.2%) fulfilled only the new criteria. Of the patients who did not fulfil the new criteria, in 39 (53%) the diagnosis was based solely on the clinician's opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The number of PJIs is notably lower when using the new, more objective, diagnostic criteria. A large portion of the cases diagnosed as infection by the treating clinician, did not fulfil the new diagnostic criteria.
Authors: Benjamin Zmistowski; Craig Della Valle; Thomas W Bauer; Konstantinos N Malizos; Abbas Alavi; Hani Bedair; Robert E Booth; Peter Choong; Carl Deirmengian; Garth D Ehrlich; Anil Gambir; Ronald Huang; Yair Kissin; Hideo Kobayashi; Naomi Kobayashi; Veit Krenn; Drago Lorenzo; S B Marston; Geert Meermans; Javier Perez; J J Ploegmakers; Aaron Rosenberg; Peter Thomas; Stephan Tohtz; Jorge A Villafuerte; Peter Wahl; Frank-Christiaan Wagenaar; Eivind Witzo Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.494
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: Bhaveen H Kapadia; Richard A Berg; Jacqueline A Daley; Jan Fritz; Anil Bhave; Michael A Mont Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elie F Berbari; Camelia Marculescu; Irene Sia; Brian D Lahr; Arlen D Hanssen; James M Steckelberg; Rachel Gullerud; Douglas R Osmon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Andrej Trampuz; Arlen D Hanssen; Douglas R Osmon; Jayawant Mandrekar; James M Steckelberg; Robin Patel Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: A P R Wilson; B Hodgson; M Liu; D Plummer; I Taylor; J Roberts; M Jit; C Sherlaw-Johnson Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Meeri Honkanen; Esa Jämsen; Matti Karppelin; Reetta Huttunen; Antti Eskelinen; Jaana Syrjänen Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.835