Qingyu Zhang1, Jinlei Dong1, Yelong Shen2, Canhua Yun3, Dongsheng Zhou1, Fanxiao Liu4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, No. 324, Road Jing Wu Wei Qi, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, No. 324, Road Jing Wu Wei Qi, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, No. 247, Road Beiyuan, Jinan, Shandong, China. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, No. 324, Road Jing Wu Wei Qi, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China. woshi631@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of available nuclear imaging modalities in the diagnosis of suspected fracture-related infection (FRI). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to retrieve diagnostic accuracy studies in which FRI was investigated using different nuclear imaging modalities. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios were constructed using the bivariate meta-analysis framework, while the superior index was pooled using Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: 22 eligible studies (1,565 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis. A broad overlapping confidence interval (CI) of pooled sensitivity was observed among bone scintigraphy (0.94; 95% CI 0.85-0.98), 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT (0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) and leukocyte scintigraphy (0.86; 95% CI 0.53-0.97). Bone scintigraphy (0.34; 95% CI 0.08-0.75) seemed to be less specific than all the other modalities, while leukocyte scintigraphy (0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98) was notably more specific than 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT (0.78; 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Based on the superiority index, 18F-FDG PET/CT (3.78; 95% CI 0.14-11.00), 18F-FDG PET (2.98; 95% CI 0.14-9.00) and leukocyte scintigraphy (1.51; 95% CI 0.11-7.00) all achieved high accuracy in detecting FRI. CONCLUSION: Bone scintigraphy is a highly sensitive nuclear imaging technique but lacks the specificity needed to unequivocally differentiate among various conditions suspected to be FRI. Leukocyte scintigraphy, 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET all present good satisfactory accuracy for the diagnosis of FRI, but their costs should be further reduced to promote their wide application.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of available nuclear imaging modalities in the diagnosis of suspected fracture-related infection (FRI). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to retrieve diagnostic accuracy studies in which FRI was investigated using different nuclear imaging modalities. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios were constructed using the bivariate meta-analysis framework, while the superior index was pooled using Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: 22 eligible studies (1,565 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis. A broad overlapping confidence interval (CI) of pooled sensitivity was observed among bone scintigraphy (0.94; 95% CI 0.85-0.98), 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT (0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) and leukocyte scintigraphy (0.86; 95% CI 0.53-0.97). Bone scintigraphy (0.34; 95% CI 0.08-0.75) seemed to be less specific than all the other modalities, while leukocyte scintigraphy (0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98) was notably more specific than 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT (0.78; 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Based on the superiority index, 18F-FDG PET/CT (3.78; 95% CI 0.14-11.00), 18F-FDG PET (2.98; 95% CI 0.14-9.00) and leukocyte scintigraphy (1.51; 95% CI 0.11-7.00) all achieved high accuracy in detecting FRI. CONCLUSION: Bone scintigraphy is a highly sensitive nuclear imaging technique but lacks the specificity needed to unequivocally differentiate among various conditions suspected to be FRI. Leukocyte scintigraphy, 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET all present good satisfactory accuracy for the diagnosis of FRI, but their costs should be further reduced to promote their wide application.
Authors: W J Metsemakers; M Morgenstern; M A McNally; T F Moriarty; I McFadyen; M Scarborough; N A Athanasou; P E Ochsner; R Kuehl; M Raschke; O Borens; Z Xie; S Velkes; S Hungerer; S L Kates; C Zalavras; P V Giannoudis; R G Richards; M H J Verhofstad Journal: Injury Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Ajai Kumar Malhotra; Stephanie Goldberg; Jeffery Graham; Nancy R Malhotra; Mark C Willis; Varatharaj Mounasamy; Kelly Guilford; Therese M Duane; Michel B Aboutanos; Julie Mayglothling; Rao R Ivatury Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Rachel V Thakore; Sarah E Greenberg; Hanyuan Shi; Alexandra M Foxx; Elvis L Francois; Marc A Prablek; Samuel K Nwosu; Kristin R Archer; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; William T Obremskey; Manish K Sethi Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2015-06-18
Authors: Geertje A Govaert; Frank F IJpma; Martin McNally; Eugene McNally; Inge H Reininga; Andor W Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: T Fintan Moriarty; Richard Kuehl; Tom Coenye; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Mario Morgenstern; Edward M Schwarz; Martijn Riool; Sebastian A J Zaat; Nina Khana; Stephen L Kates; R Geoff Richards Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2017-03-13
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: T Fintan Moriarty; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Mario Morgenstern; Marloes I Hofstee; Alejandro Vallejo Diaz; James E Cassat; Britt Wildemann; Melissa Depypere; Edward M Schwarz; R Geoff Richards Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 65.038