Diana Hoang1, Stephen Fisher2, Orhan K Oz2, Javier La Fontaine3, Avneesh Chhabra4. 1. Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: diana.hoang@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Plastic Surgery, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Orthopedics, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the utility of percutaneous CT guided bone biopsy (PCBB) for suspected osteomyelitis (OM) and its eventual impact on patient management and recovery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who received a PCBB for suspected osteomyelitis from years 2012-2018. Patient demographics, lesion location, ulcer grade, signs of toxemia, serology, wound and blood cultures, bone biopsy and cross-sectional imaging results were recorded. Diagnostic yield of the bone biopsy and its role in influencing the final treatment plan and patient recovery were evaluated. Chi-square test was used. P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 115 patients with mean age 50.86 ± 14.49 years were included. The common locations were sacrum/ischium (49/115, 43%) and spine (35/115, 30%). Clinically, 40/115 (35%) had toxemia and 67/115 (58%) had ulcers. Per serology, 17/111 (15%), 95/106 (90%), and 86/98 (88%) had an elevated WBC, CRP, and sedimentation rate, respectively. 22/91 (24%) had a positive blood culture and all 23/23 had a positive wound culture. On imaging, definitive and possible OM were reported in 84.1% and 14.2%, respectively, with 1.8% as no OM. Only 24/115 (21%) had a positive bone biopsy culture and only 10/24 (42%) total positive bone cultures impacted the treatment plan. There was no significant effect of antibiotics on the diagnostic yield of culture (p = 0.08). No statistical significance was found when comparing treatment change based on bone culture results versus all other factors combined (p = 0.33), or when comparing clinical improvement with and without positive bone cultures (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Despite positive cross-sectional imaging findings of OM, bone biopsy yield of positive culture is low, and it leads to a small impact in changing the treatment plan or altering the course of patient recovery.
AIM: To evaluate the utility of percutaneous CT guided bone biopsy (PCBB) for suspected osteomyelitis (OM) and its eventual impact on patient management and recovery. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Patients who received a PCBB for suspected osteomyelitis from years 2012-2018. Patient demographics, lesion location, ulcer grade, signs of toxemia, serology, wound and blood cultures, bone biopsy and cross-sectional imaging results were recorded. Diagnostic yield of the bone biopsy and its role in influencing the final treatment plan and patient recovery were evaluated. Chi-square test was used. P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 115 patients with mean age 50.86 ± 14.49 years were included. The common locations were sacrum/ischium (49/115, 43%) and spine (35/115, 30%). Clinically, 40/115 (35%) had toxemia and 67/115 (58%) had ulcers. Per serology, 17/111 (15%), 95/106 (90%), and 86/98 (88%) had an elevated WBC, CRP, and sedimentation rate, respectively. 22/91 (24%) had a positive blood culture and all 23/23 had a positive wound culture. On imaging, definitive and possible OM were reported in 84.1% and 14.2%, respectively, with 1.8% as no OM. Only 24/115 (21%) had a positive bone biopsy culture and only 10/24 (42%) total positive bone cultures impacted the treatment plan. There was no significant effect of antibiotics on the diagnostic yield of culture (p = 0.08). No statistical significance was found when comparing treatment change based on bone culture results versus all other factors combined (p = 0.33), or when comparing clinical improvement with and without positive bone cultures (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Despite positive cross-sectional imaging findings of OM, bone biopsy yield of positive culture is low, and it leads to a small impact in changing the treatment plan or altering the course of patient recovery.
Authors: Marcos C Schechter; Mohammed K Ali; Benjamin B Risk; Adam D Singer; Gabriel Santamarina; Hannah K Rogers; Ravi R Rajani; Guillermo Umpierrez; Maya Fayfman; Russell R Kempker Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Geertje A M Govaert; Richard Kuehl; Bridget L Atkins; Andrej Trampuz; Mario Morgenstern; William T Obremskey; Michael H J Verhofstad; Martin A McNally; Willem-Jan Metsemakers Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Katie Rubitschung; Amber Sherwood; Andrew P Crisologo; Kavita Bhavan; Robert W Haley; Dane K Wukich; Laila Castellino; Helena Hwang; Javier La Fontaine; Avneesh Chhabra; Lawrence Lavery; Orhan K Öz Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Erin F Alaia; Avneesh Chhabra; Claus S Simpfendorfer; Micah Cohen; Douglas N Mintz; Josephina A Vossen; Adam C Zoga; Jan Fritz; Charles E Spritzer; David G Armstrong; William B Morrison Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 2.128