Konstantinos Tsikopoulos1, Savas Ilias Christofilos2, Dimitrios Kitridis3, Konstantinos Sidiropoulos4, Panagiotis N Stoikos5, Christoforos Gravalidis6, Panagiotis Givissis3, Paraskevi Papaioannidou7. 1. 1st Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. ktsikopo@auth.gr. 2. Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK. 3. 1st Orthopaedic Department, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 4. School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. 5. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece. 6. Solid State Physics Sector, Physics Department, Faculty of Exact Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 7. 1st Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Even though effective techniques in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) have been developed, the optimal modality has yet to be determined. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dithiothreitol (DTT) and sonication against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria in patients undergoing revision joint surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Central Cochrane register of controlled trials as well as gray literature until the 9th of November, 2021. We included articles considering the comparative diagnostic accuracy of sonication and DTT in adult patients having revision hip and knee arthroplasty for septic or aseptic reasons. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the above diagnostic techniques against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and created receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves to enable comparisons between each other. The quality of included papers was evaluated utilizing QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. RESULTS: Data from five comparative studies totaling 726 implants were pooled together. The diagnostic accuracy of DTT and sonication were 86.7% (95% CI 82.7 to 90.1) and 83.9% (95% CI 79.7 to 87.5), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity showed no statistically significant differences between DTT and sonication (0.7 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.77] vs 0.72 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.78], p = 0.14; and 0.99 [95% CI 0.97 to 1] vs 0.97 [95% CI 0.93 to 0.99], p = 5.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not identify any clinically meaningful difference between the diagnostic potential of sonication and the chemical-based biofilm dislodgment methods. This finding remained robust after adjusting for the administration of antibiotics prophylaxis, implementation of the polymerase chain reaction of sonicated fluid, and study quality.
PURPOSE: Even though effective techniques in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) have been developed, the optimal modality has yet to be determined. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dithiothreitol (DTT) and sonication against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria in patients undergoing revision joint surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Central Cochrane register of controlled trials as well as gray literature until the 9th of November, 2021. We included articles considering the comparative diagnostic accuracy of sonication and DTT in adult patients having revision hip and knee arthroplasty for septic or aseptic reasons. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the above diagnostic techniques against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and created receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves to enable comparisons between each other. The quality of included papers was evaluated utilizing QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. RESULTS: Data from five comparative studies totaling 726 implants were pooled together. The diagnostic accuracy of DTT and sonication were 86.7% (95% CI 82.7 to 90.1) and 83.9% (95% CI 79.7 to 87.5), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity showed no statistically significant differences between DTT and sonication (0.7 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.77] vs 0.72 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.78], p = 0.14; and 0.99 [95% CI 0.97 to 1] vs 0.97 [95% CI 0.93 to 0.99], p = 5.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not identify any clinically meaningful difference between the diagnostic potential of sonication and the chemical-based biofilm dislodgment methods. This finding remained robust after adjusting for the administration of antibiotics prophylaxis, implementation of the polymerase chain reaction of sonicated fluid, and study quality.
Authors: John William Costerton; James Christopher Post; Garth D Ehrlich; Fen Z Hu; Rachael Kreft; Laura Nistico; Sandeep Kathju; Paul Stoodley; Luanne Hall-Stoodley; Gerhard Maale; Garth James; Nick Sotereanos; Patrick DeMeo Journal: FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol Date: 2011-01-18
Authors: Johannes Holinka; Leonhard Bauer; Alexander M Hirschl; Wolfgang Graninger; Reinhard Windhager; Elisabeth Presterl Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Kevin L Ong; Edward Lau; Kevin J Bozic; Daniel Berry; Javad Parvizi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-08-08 Impact factor: 4.176