INTRODUCTION: This study tried to ascertain (1) the accuracy of synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip and knee infections, (2) which test yielded superior test performance, and (3) the influence on diagnostic accuracy of study characteristics such as patient number, study design, study level, anatomic site, and threshold value. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted including papers assessing more effective cutoffs for synovial fluid tests, having comparative design, evaluating an exclusive cohort of hip or knee prostheses, including a clear definition of infected cases, and reporting sufficient data for the calculation of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative. RESULTS: A total of 375 articles were collected and, given the inclusion criteria, ten manuscripts were included. These studies assessed 1155 hip prostheses (276 infected cases) and 1235 knee prostheses (401 infected cases). The specificity of synovial fluid white blood cell count was significantly increased by using the threshold value ≥ 3000 cell/μL (p = 0.006); the sensitivity of polymorphonucleate percentage was significantly higher in detecting knee infections (p = 0.034). DISCUSSION: Both tests had a high specificity and sensitivity in detecting periprosthetic joint infections, and no clear superiority of one over the other existed. Furthermore, cutoff and anatomic site significantly influenced synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage, respectively. CONCLUSION: Synovial fluid analysis is adequate in differentiating patients with periprosthetic hip and knee infections. Our data confirms international guidelines suggesting the use of 3000 cell/μL as cutoff threshold for synovial fluid white blood cell count. Since an anatomic site effect has been demonstrated, the goal of future studies will be to identify different cutoffs for hip and knee prostheses.
INTRODUCTION: This study tried to ascertain (1) the accuracy of synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip and knee infections, (2) which test yielded superior test performance, and (3) the influence on diagnostic accuracy of study characteristics such as patient number, study design, study level, anatomic site, and threshold value. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted including papers assessing more effective cutoffs for synovial fluid tests, having comparative design, evaluating an exclusive cohort of hip or knee prostheses, including a clear definition of infected cases, and reporting sufficient data for the calculation of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative. RESULTS: A total of 375 articles were collected and, given the inclusion criteria, ten manuscripts were included. These studies assessed 1155 hip prostheses (276 infected cases) and 1235 knee prostheses (401 infected cases). The specificity of synovial fluid white blood cell count was significantly increased by using the threshold value ≥ 3000 cell/μL (p = 0.006); the sensitivity of polymorphonucleate percentage was significantly higher in detecting knee infections (p = 0.034). DISCUSSION: Both tests had a high specificity and sensitivity in detecting periprosthetic joint infections, and no clear superiority of one over the other existed. Furthermore, cutoff and anatomic site significantly influenced synovial fluid white blood cell count and polymorphonucleate percentage, respectively. CONCLUSION: Synovial fluid analysis is adequate in differentiating patients with periprosthetic hip and knee infections. Our data confirms international guidelines suggesting the use of 3000 cell/μL as cutoff threshold for synovial fluid white blood cell count. Since an anatomic site effect has been demonstrated, the goal of future studies will be to identify different cutoffs for hip and knee prostheses.
Entities:
Keywords:
Infected hip prosthesis; Infected knee prosthesis; Periprosthetic joint infections; Synovial fluid analysis; Synovial white blood cell count
Authors: J Bohannon Mason; Thomas K Fehring; Susan M Odum; William L Griffin; Donna S Nussman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Paul H Yi; Michael B Cross; Mario Moric; Brett R Levine; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky; Joshua J Jacobs; Craig J Della Valle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.176
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