Sofia Tani1, Panagiotis Lepetsos2, Antonios Stylianakis1, John Vlamis3, Konstantinos Birbas4, Ioannis Kaklamanos4. 1. Microbiological Laboratory, KAT Hospital, Nikis 2, Kifissia, 14561, Athens, Greece. 2. 4th Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, KAT Hospital, Nikis 2, Kifissia, 14561, Athens, Greece. plepetsos@med.uoa.gr. 3. 3rd Academic Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University of Athens Medical School, KAT Hospital, Nikis 2, Kifissia, 14561, Athens, Greece. 4. "Agioi Anargyroi" General and Oncologic Hospital of Kifissia, Timiou Stavrou, Kifissia, 14565, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of periprosthetic infections is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periprosthetic tissue culture and culture of sonication fluid of the explanted prostheses. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 114 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty because of loosening of the prostheses, at our institution, between July 2012 and July 2016. Patients' medical history and demographic characteristics were recorded. The explanted hardware was separated in sterile containers and sonicated under sterile conditions. At least five samples of periprosthetic tissue were sent for culture and histological examination. We compared the culture of samples obtained by sonication of explanted hip and knee prostheses with conventional culture of periprosthetic tissue for the microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. RESULTS: Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines were used for the definition of prosthetic joint infection. Sixty-one patients had periprosthetic infection and 53 aseptic loosening (73 hip prostheses and 41 knee prostheses). The sensitivity of sonication fluid culture was 77.04%, and the sensitivity of conventional tissue cultures was 55.73% (p value = 0.012). The specificities of the two methods were 98.11 and 94.34%, respectively. The sensitivity of the histopathological examination of the periprosthetic tissue was 72.10%. There were 17 patients with PJI where the isolated pathogen was detected in SFC but not in PTC, while in five cases the pathogen was detected only in PTC. There were nine patients where no bacteria were detected by any microbiological method and the diagnosis was based on clinical and histological findings, according to the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The sonication method represents a reliable test for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections with a greater sensitivity and specificity than the conventional periprosthetic tissue cultures.
INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of periprosthetic infections is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periprosthetic tissue culture and culture of sonication fluid of the explanted prostheses. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 114 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty because of loosening of the prostheses, at our institution, between July 2012 and July 2016. Patients' medical history and demographic characteristics were recorded. The explanted hardware was separated in sterile containers and sonicated under sterile conditions. At least five samples of periprosthetic tissue were sent for culture and histological examination. We compared the culture of samples obtained by sonication of explanted hip and knee prostheses with conventional culture of periprosthetic tissue for the microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. RESULTS: Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines were used for the definition of prosthetic joint infection. Sixty-one patients had periprosthetic infection and 53 aseptic loosening (73 hip prostheses and 41 knee prostheses). The sensitivity of sonication fluid culture was 77.04%, and the sensitivity of conventional tissue cultures was 55.73% (p value = 0.012). The specificities of the two methods were 98.11 and 94.34%, respectively. The sensitivity of the histopathological examination of the periprosthetic tissue was 72.10%. There were 17 patients with PJI where the isolated pathogen was detected in SFC but not in PTC, while in five cases the pathogen was detected only in PTC. There were nine patients where no bacteria were detected by any microbiological method and the diagnosis was based on clinical and histological findings, according to the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The sonication method represents a reliable test for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections with a greater sensitivity and specificity than the conventional periprosthetic tissue cultures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biofilm; Periprosthetic infections; Sonication; Total joint arthroplasty
Authors: Hideo Kobayashi; Margret Oethinger; Marion J Tuohy; Gary W Procop; Thomas W Bauer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Lorenzo Drago; Carlo Luca Romanò; Roberto Mattina; Valentina Signori; Elena De Vecchi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: L Puig-Verdié; E Alentorn-Geli; A González-Cuevas; L Sorlí; M Salvadó; A Alier; X Pelfort; M E Portillo; J P Horcajada Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: D S Evangelopoulos; I P Stathopoulos; G P Morassi; S Koufos; A Albarni; P K Karampinas; A Stylianakis; S Kohl; S Pneumaticos; J Vlamis Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2013-10-10
Authors: Qun Yan; Melissa J Karau; Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Douglas R Osmon; Matthew P Abdel; Robin Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Maria Dudareva; Lucinda Barrett; Mel Figtree; Matthew Scarborough; Masanori Watanabe; Robert Newnham; Rachael Wallis; Sarah Oakley; Ben Kendrick; David Stubbs; Martin A McNally; Philip Bejon; Bridget A Atkins; Adrian Taylor; Andrew J Brent Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Bayard C Carlson; Jeremy T Hines; William A Robinson; Arjun S Sebastian; Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance; Robin Patel; Paul M Huddleston Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.241