| Literature DB >> 32774119 |
Anja Jokic1,2, Lara Milevoj Kopcinovic1,3, Jelena Culej1,3, Irena Kocijan1,4, Marija Bozovic1,3.
Abstract
Joint diseases are conditions with an often progressive and generally painful nature affecting the patient's quality of life and, in some cases, requiring a prompt diagnosis in order to start the treatment urgently. Synovial fluid (SF) laboratory testing is an important part of a diagnostic evaluation of patients with joint diseases. Laboratory testing of SF can provide valuable information in establishing the diagnosis, be a part of a patient's follow-up and treatment with the purpose of improving the patient's health and quality of life. Synovial fluid laboratory testing is rarely performed in Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories. Consequently, procedures for SF laboratory testing are poorly harmonized. This document is the second in the series of recommendations prepared by the members of the Working group for extravascular body fluid samples of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. It addresses preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues and the clinical significance of tests used in SF laboratory testing with the aim of improving the value of SF laboratory testing in the diagnosis of joint diseases and assisting in the achievement of national harmonization. It is intended for laboratory professionals and all medical personnel involved in synovial fluid collection and testing. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.Entities:
Keywords: crystal analysis; gout; osteoarthritis; recommendations; synovial fluid
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32774119 PMCID: PMC7394252 DOI: 10.11613/BM.2020.030501
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb) ISSN: 1330-0962 Impact factor: 2.313
Classification of joint effusions according to SF laboratory testing
| Volume, mL | < 3.5 | > 3.5 | > 3.5 | > 3.5 | > 3.5 |
| Appearance (colour, clarity) | Colourless – straw; clear | Lightly yellowish – straw; clear, slightly cloudy | Yellow-white, grey; cloudy, turbid, milky | White, grey, yellow-green; turbid, purulent | Red-brown, xanthochromic; turbid |
| Leukocyte count, x106/L | < 200 | 20–2000 | 2000–50,000 | > 50,000 | Equal to blood |
| Neutrophils, % | < 25 | < 25 | > 50 | > 75 (> 90) | Equal to blood |
| Serum-synovial fluid glucose difference (mmol/L) | ≤ 0.6 | < 1.1 | > 1.1 (to 4.4) | > 2.2 (to 5.6) | < 1.1 |
| Crystals | None | Occasionally calcium-pyrophosphate and hydroxyapatite | Needle-shaped monosodium urate monohydrate (gout); rhomboid calcium pyrophosphate (pseudogout) | None | None |
| Possible disorders | None | Osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, osteonecrosis | Rheumatoid arthritis, septic arthritis, gout, pseudogout, SLE | Bacterial, fungal, mycobacterial infection | Trauma, haemophilia, anticoagulation therapy, tumour, joint prosthesis |
| SF – synovial fluid. Glucose difference – the difference of glucose concentrations between serum and SF, when serum samples are collected simultaneously. SLE – systemic lupus erythematosus. Adapted from ( | |||||
Figure 1Algorithm for synovial fluid laboratory analysis.
Synovial fluid crystals in joint conditions
| Monosodium urate | Urate arthritis (gout) | Fine, needle-like with strongly birefringent; extra- or intracellular (in leukocytes) |
| Calcium pyrophosphate | Chondrocalcinosis (pseudogout), degenerative arthritis, arthritis accompanying metabolic diseases | Rod-like, rhomboid, squared with a weak birefringence (best visualized by light microscopy) |
| Cholesterol | Chronic inflammatory conditions (RA) | Flat, rectangular plates, not birefringent |
| Hydroxyapatite | Apatite-associated arthropathies | Tiny, needle-like, not birefringent, present in leukocytes and visible only by electron microscopy |
| Corticosteroid | Months after intra-articular injection | Variable depending on the corticosteroid applied, similar to monosodium urate or calcium pyrophosphate |
| RA – rheumatoid arthritis. Adapted from ( | ||
Reference intervals and differential limits for clinically useful analytes
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 3.3–5.3 | 1.1–3.1 | 1.1–1.7 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 1.0–1.8 | Up to 6.8 | > 9.0 |
| Uric acid (mmol/L) | Equal to blood | Equal to blood | Equal to blood |
| Total proteins (g/L) | 11–22 | > 40 | 30–60 |
| RF | Negative | Positive/negative | Negative |
| LD (U/L) | < 280 | > 280 (to 750) | > 300 |
| WBC (x106/L) | < 200 | 2000–50,000 | 50,000 |
| %PMN | < 25 | > 50 | > 75 |
| Monosodium urate crystals | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| Calcium pyrophosphate crystals | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| SF – synovial fluid. RF – rheumatoid factor. LD – lactate dehydrogenase. WBC – white blood cell count. PMN – polymorphonuclear lymphocytes. Adapted from ( | |||
| No specific patient preparation procedure is needed before sample collection (arthrocentesis). If glucose is to be measured in the SF sample, the patient should be fasting at least 6 hours prior to the SF collection ( |
| The test request form for synovial fluid laboratory testing should adhere to accreditation and good laboratory practice requirements. |
| Samples should be labelled in the presence of the patient, with at least two unique identifiers (name and date of birth, preferably), location (ward), date and time of collection and anatomic site of collection ( |
| Appropriate collection containers and sample handling procedures (transport and processing) should be directed by the test ordered and should reflect appropriate procedures used for the validated (standard) sample type ( |
| The quality of the sample should be assessed by visual inspection before analysis to avoid instrument failures and/or measurement errors. Clotted samples affect cell count accuracy and should not be considered suitable for these particular analyses. Inadequate sample quality should be documented in the test report ( |
| A peruse of the manufacturer’s performance specifications for methods used in SF analysis is a precondition prior to the determination of specific biochemical parameters in the SF. If performance specifications for SF analysis are not provided in the manufacturer’s product insert, analytical method validation has to be undertaken, accompanied with appropriate documentation. |
| Recommendations for method validation as well as quality control and proficiency testing in the EBF analysis are available in the first recommendation of the WG EBFS and should be applied in the SF analysis ( |
| The total volume of synovial fluid collected should be recorded by the clinician immediately after arthrocentesis on the test request form and should later be stated in the laboratory test report ( |
| Synovial fluid appearance (colour and clarity) should be determined visually, upon sample receipt and before centrifugation ( |
| The determination of synovial fluid viscosity is of low clinical value and should not be performed routinely ( |
| Although the SF mucin (also called the Rope’s) test is an indirect measure of SF viscosity, it is considered obsolete and should not be performed routinely ( |
| Biochemical and microscopic analysis of SF samples should be performed immediately upon sample receipt ( |
| Synovial fluid glucose should be interpreted according to simultaneous glucose concentrations measured in the serum. Standard (serum) procedures should be applied to synovial fluid glucose measurement. Glucose concentrations in SF should be determined within one-hour form collection in order to prevent erroneously low glucose concentrations due to the glycolytic activity of leukocytes in the sample ( |
| The value of lactate measurement in SF is uncertain. Consequently, it should not be measured routinely. Synovial fluid lactate might be measured in case of suspected bacterial (septic) arthritis ( |
| The determination of uric acid in SF samples should be performed in cases of suspected gout without increased plasma uric acid concentrations, without urate crystals present microscopically or in laboratories without the necessary equipment for MSU crystal analysis ( |
| Synovial fluid proteins should be routinely measured in SF samples with standard (serum) procedures. The reference range of total proteins in SF samples is 11–22 g/L. Higher total protein concentrations are a nonspecific indicator of the presence of inflammatory joint disorders and are of little value in the differentiation of joint disorders or in guiding treatment ( |
| Synovial fluid rheumatoid factor (RF) should not be routinely determined as a part of SF analysis. It might be determined as a confirmatory analysis in cases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that are not definitively diagnosed by standard (serum) analyses ( |
| Synovial fluid C-reactive protein (CRP) should not be routinely measured to assess inflammation in the joint. However, SF CRP has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and might be measured in patients with previous joint replacement and high clinical suspicion of PJI ( |
| The activity of lactate dehydrogenase (LD) in SF samples should be measured as an indicator of the inflammation level present in the joint. The reference range of LD in SF is < 280 U/L ( |
| Total and differential cell counts should be performed promptly upon the receipt of the SF sample ( |
| Although total WBC count and differentials have limited value in identifying specific joint conditions due to considerable intra-individual variations, it is accepted in clinical practice that the WBC count and %PMN moderately correlate with the degree of joint inflammation ( |
| The presence of MSU is pathognomonic for urate arthritis (gout), while calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate (CPPD) crystals are associated with chondrocalcinosis (pseudogout). Synovial fluid crystal analysis should be performed using (direct or compensated) polarizing light microscopy (PLM). Slides should be prepared using cytocentrifuged SF samples to increase the sensitivity of crystal detection ( |
| Laboratory test reports of SF analysis should include the type of fluid analysed, the measured value, as well as reference range and/or decision limits for each tested analyte in order to guide clinical interpretation and decision-making. Additionally, test reports should include a comment acknowledging the possible influence of sample matrix on the test’s accuracy and thus the need to interpret results in conjunction with clinical symptoms ( |