| Literature DB >> 28956151 |
Kirsten E van Vliet1, Vincent M de Jong2, M Frank Termaat3, Tim Schepers2, Berthe L F van Eck-Smit4, J Carel Goslings2, Niels W L Schep5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has proven to have a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of bone infections. In patients with delayed union it may be clinically important to differentiate between aseptic and septic delayed union. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and to assess the optimal diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in differentiating between aseptic and septic delayed union in the lower extremity.Entities:
Keywords: Bone infection; Delayed fracture healing; FDG-PET; Lower extremity; Osteomyelitis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28956151 PMCID: PMC5773632 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-017-2806-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Patients’ characteristics
| Patient no./sex/age (years) | Fracture site | Culture | Final diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1/M/29 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 2/M/47 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 3/M/63 | Tibia | No culture | Aseptic delayed union |
| 4/F/51 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 5/F/74 | Calcaneus | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 6/M/51 | Calcaneus | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 7/M/25 | Femur | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 8/F/34 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 9/F/23 | Femur | No culture | Aseptic delayed union |
| 10/M/18 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 11/F/30 | Calcaneus | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 12/F/73 | Tibia | No culture | Aseptic delayed union |
| 13/M/47 | Calcaneus | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 14/M/31 | Tibia | No culture | Septic delayed union |
| 15/M/39 | Tibia | No culture | Aseptic delayed union |
| 16/M/42 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 17/F/64 | Calcaneus | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 18/M/33 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 19/M/57 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 20/M/47 | Tibia | No culture | Septic delayed union |
| 21/M/60 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 22/M/68 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 23/M/70 | Tibia | No culture | Septic delayed union |
| 24/M/49 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 25/F/56 | Calcaneus | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 26/M/41 | Tibia | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 27/F/39 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
| 28/M/25 | Femur | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 29/M39 | Femur | Positive | Septic delayed union |
| 30/M/55 | Tibia | Negative | Aseptic delayed union |
Fig. 1Flowchart of methods: all patients were divided into aseptic or septic delayed union based on surgical deep cultures or clinical follow-up
Summary of patients’ characteristics and SUVmax
| Patients’ characteristics and SUVmax | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 30 | ||
| Sex (M/F) | 21/9 | ||
| Mean age (years) | 46 (range 18–74) | ||
| Aseptic delayed union | Septic delayed union | ||
| No. of fractures | 13 | 17 | |
| Location of fracture: | |||
| Femur | 1 | 3 | |
| Tibia | 10 | 10 | |
| Calcaneus | 2 | 4 | |
| SUVmax: | |||
| Mean | 3.23 | 4.77 |
|
| SD | 1.21 | 1.87 | 0.016 |
Fig. 2The efficacy of FDG-PET/CT to discriminate between aseptic and septic delayed union at various SUVmax cut-off points. Lines cross approximately at SUVmax 4.0 which corresponds with a sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 77%
Efficacy of FDG-PET/CT to differentiate between aseptic and septic delayed union at SUVmax cut-off points
| SUVmax cut-off | Septic delayed union ( | Aseptic delayed union ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True positive | True negative | False positive | False negative | Sensitivity | Specificity | Diagnostic accuracy | |
| > 3.0 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 0.76 | 0.38 | 0.60 |
| > 4.0 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.70 |
| > 5.0 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 12 | 0.29 | 0.92 | 0.57 |