Yong Seuk Lee1, Navin Fernando, Kyung-Hoi Koo, Hyun Jung Kim, Hamed Vahedi, Antonia F Chen. 1. Y. S. Lee, N. Fernando, H. Vahedi, A. F. Chen, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA K.-H. Koo, Y. S. Lee, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, South Korea N. Fernando, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA H. J. Kim, Institute for Evidence-based Medicine and Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the appropriate marker to use when deciding to perform reimplantation after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: What tests provide acceptable diagnostic value to guide appropriate timing of reimplantation in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI? METHODS: A search of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane database) was performed containing articles that provided sensitivity and specificity values for accuracy for predicting reimplantation of the hip and/or knee. Twelve articles were included for final analysis, which included data from 1047 patients. Data that described the diagnostic accuracy of markers for reimplantation were evaluated and categorized into four main entities according to diagnostic method (serologic, synovial, tissue, and diagnostic imaging). Twelve parameters were examined, including serum erythrocyte sedimentation (ESR) rate, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum white blood cell (WBC) count, synovial fluid Gram stain, synovial fluid culture, synovial fluid sonication culture, synovial fluid WBC, synovial fluid polymorphonucleocyte percentage (PMN%), tissue Gram stain, tissue culture, positron emission tomography scan, and leukocyte scan. Each of the included articles was independently analyzed for risk of bias and applicability by using QUADAS-2. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated by using the Cochran Q test, and an α of 0.10 was considered significant for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Tissue culture (sensitivity 0.82 [0.72-0.90], specificity 0.91 [0.89-0.95], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 46.87 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.03-99.69], synovial fluid PMN% (sensitivity 0.77 [0.46-0.95], specificity 0.74 [0.67-0.81], DOR 11.27 [95% CI, 2.89-43.61]), and synovial fluid culture (sensitivity 0.64 [0.52-0.74], specificity 0.96 [0.93-0.98], DOR 27.07 [95% CI, 2.55-288.00]) showed relatively high diagnostic performance. Other parameters had poorer diagnostic accuracy: ESR (sensitivity 0.56 [0.40-0.72], specificity 0.60 [0.53-0.66], DOR 2.41 [95% CI, 0.60-9.72), CRP (sensitivity 0.53 [0.39-0.67], specificity 0.72 [0.66-0.78], DOR 2.25 [95% CI, 0.09-4.63), and synovial fluid WBC count (sensitivity 0.37 [0.19-0.58], specificity 0.49 [0.41-0.57], DOR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.06-14.74). However, interpretation is limited, because only two to three studies were available for each pooled analysis. Both risks of bias and applicability concerns were low in the four domains assessed in QUADAS-2. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that no single marker was superior to all the others, and none (when used alone) is likely sufficient to confirm control of infection after the first stage of a two-stage protocol for PJI. Therefore, the current approach using multiple tools rather than a single marker is essential. Additionally, further studies must be conducted so that pooled analysis can be performed using multiple studies to determine ideal markers for reimplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the appropriate marker to use when deciding to perform reimplantation after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: What tests provide acceptable diagnostic value to guide appropriate timing of reimplantation in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI? METHODS: A search of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane database) was performed containing articles that provided sensitivity and specificity values for accuracy for predicting reimplantation of the hip and/or knee. Twelve articles were included for final analysis, which included data from 1047 patients. Data that described the diagnostic accuracy of markers for reimplantation were evaluated and categorized into four main entities according to diagnostic method (serologic, synovial, tissue, and diagnostic imaging). Twelve parameters were examined, including serum erythrocyte sedimentation (ESR) rate, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum white blood cell (WBC) count, synovial fluid Gram stain, synovial fluid culture, synovial fluid sonication culture, synovial fluid WBC, synovial fluid polymorphonucleocyte percentage (PMN%), tissue Gram stain, tissue culture, positron emission tomography scan, and leukocyte scan. Each of the included articles was independently analyzed for risk of bias and applicability by using QUADAS-2. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated by using the Cochran Q test, and an α of 0.10 was considered significant for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Tissue culture (sensitivity 0.82 [0.72-0.90], specificity 0.91 [0.89-0.95], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 46.87 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.03-99.69], synovial fluid PMN% (sensitivity 0.77 [0.46-0.95], specificity 0.74 [0.67-0.81], DOR 11.27 [95% CI, 2.89-43.61]), and synovial fluid culture (sensitivity 0.64 [0.52-0.74], specificity 0.96 [0.93-0.98], DOR 27.07 [95% CI, 2.55-288.00]) showed relatively high diagnostic performance. Other parameters had poorer diagnostic accuracy: ESR (sensitivity 0.56 [0.40-0.72], specificity 0.60 [0.53-0.66], DOR 2.41 [95% CI, 0.60-9.72), CRP (sensitivity 0.53 [0.39-0.67], specificity 0.72 [0.66-0.78], DOR 2.25 [95% CI, 0.09-4.63), and synovial fluid WBC count (sensitivity 0.37 [0.19-0.58], specificity 0.49 [0.41-0.57], DOR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.06-14.74). However, interpretation is limited, because only two to three studies were available for each pooled analysis. Both risks of bias and applicability concerns were low in the four domains assessed in QUADAS-2. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that no single marker was superior to all the others, and none (when used alone) is likely sufficient to confirm control of infection after the first stage of a two-stage protocol for PJI. Therefore, the current approach using multiple tools rather than a single marker is essential. Additionally, further studies must be conducted so that pooled analysis can be performed using multiple studies to determine ideal markers for reimplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.
Authors: Sanjai K Shukla; Joseph P Ward; Marc C Jacofsky; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky; Craig J Della Valle Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Miguel M Gomez; Timothy L Tan; Jorge Manrique; Gregory K Deirmengian; Javad Parvizi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Tiziana Ascione; Giovanni Balato; Massimo Mariconda; Francesco Smeraglia; Andrea Baldini; Cristiano De Franco; Giuseppe Pandolfo; Roberta Siciliano; Pasquale Pagliano Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Thomas Ackmann; Jan Schwarze; Georg Gosheger; Tom Schmidt-Braekling; Kristian Nikolaus Schneider; Ralf Dieckmann; Sebastian Klingebiel; Burkhard Moellenbeck; Christoph Theil Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.379