Literature DB >> 8301279

Bone scan, gallium scan, and hip aspiration in the diagnosis of infected total hip arthroplasty.

W J Kraemer1, R Saplys, J P Waddell, J Morton.   

Abstract

The difficulty in differentiating aseptic loosening from infection in painful total hip arthroplasty is well recognized. This prompted a review of the efficacy of the preoperative investigations used at the authors' institution. One hundred forty-four patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty were reviewed. Seventy-two had sequential bone-gallium scan, and/or hip aspiration, and intraoperative Gram stain. These were compared to intraoperative culture as the gold standard. Twenty infected hips were detected on culture. For prediction of infection, the bone-gallium scan had a sensitivity of 38% and a specificity of 100%. Hip aspiration had a sensitivity of 57% and a specificity of 97%. The investigations combined gave a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 95%. Intraoperative Gram stain compared with subsequent culture yielded a sensitivity of 23% and a specificity of 100%. Uncemented hips were infected more frequently (47%) than cemented hips (9%), significant at P < .0001. It was concluded that bone-gallium imaging is not an effective method for investigating painful hip prostheses for sepsis and offers no additional advantage over hip aspiration. Intraoperative Gram stain also missed a large number of infections. Other modalities, such as indium-labeled-leukocyte imaging and capsular histologic examination, may be more efficacious. A significant difference in the number of infections found in cemented versus uncemented hips was shown, hence greater vigilance for infection is required when patients present with painful uncemented hip arthroplasties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8301279     DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(93)90008-r

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  21 in total

1.  The value of (18)FDG-PET for the detection of infected hip prosthesis.

Authors:  Benedicte Vanquickenborne; Alex Maes; Johan Nuyts; Frank Van Acker; Jos Stuyck; Michiel Mulier; Alfons Verbruggen; Luc Mortelmans
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-03-04       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Diagnosing periprosthetic infection: false-positive intraoperative Gram stains.

Authors:  Margret Oethinger; Debra K Warner; Susan A Schindler; Hideo Kobayashi; Thomas W Bauer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  [Periprosthetic knee infection. One-stage exchange].

Authors:  C Friesecke; J Wodtke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Preoperative aspiration culture for preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Xinhua Qu; Zanjing Zhai; Chuanlong Wu; Fangchun Jin; Haowei Li; Lei Wang; Guangwang Liu; Xuqiang Liu; Wengang Wang; Huiwu Li; Xiaoyu Zhang; Zhenan Zhu; Kerong Dai
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 5.  Prosthetic joint infections: radionuclide state-of-the-art imaging.

Authors:  Filip Gemmel; Hans Van den Wyngaert; Charito Love; M M Welling; Paul Gemmel; Christopher J Palestro
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  High diagnostic value of synovial biopsy in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip.

Authors:  Bernd Fink; Alexander Gebhard; Martin Fuerst; Irina Berger; Peter Schäfer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  An assessment of the histological criteria used to diagnose infection in hip revision arthroplasty tissues.

Authors:  R Pandey; E Drakoulakis; N A Athanasou
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Fluoroscopy- vs ultrasound-guided aspiration techniques in the management of periprosthetic joint infection: which is the best?

Authors:  Filippo Randelli; Marco Brioschi; Pietro Randelli; Federico Ambrogi; Silvana Sdao; Alberto Aliprandi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 9.  Role of modern imaging techniques for diagnosis of infection in the era of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Rakesh Kumar; Sandip Basu; Drew Torigian; Vivek Anand; Hongming Zhuang; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 26.132

10.  [Management of periprosthetic infection].

Authors:  C Friesecke; J Wodtke
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 0.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.