Literature DB >> 8550647

The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty.

D S Feldman1, J H Lonner, P Desai, J D Zuckerman.   

Abstract

We performed a retrospective analysis of thirty-three consecutive total hip and knee (twenty-three hip and ten knee) revision arthroplasties during which intraoperative frozen sections were analyzed. Data for the study were collected by means of a review of the charts, radiographic analysis, and evaluation of both frozen and permanent histological sections. The frozen sections, of periprosthetic tissue at the bone-cement interface or the pseudocapsule, were considered positive for active infection if there were more than five polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field in at least five distinct microscopic fields. All patients were available for follow-up, at an average of thirty-six months (range, seventeen to seventy-nine months) after the initial revision operation. The frozen sections from ten patients were positive for infection, and those from twenty-three patients were negative. Comparison of the results of the analyses of the frozen sections (both positive and negative) with those of the analyses of the permanent histological sections of similar tissue showed a correlation of 100 per cent (sensitivity, 1.00; specificity, 1.00; and accuracy, 1.00). Nine patients had positive intraoperative cultures, and all of them had positive frozen sections (sensitivity, 1.00). Of the twenty-four patients who had negative intraoperative cultures, twenty-three had negative frozen sections (specificity, 0.96). Of the nine patients who had positive intraoperative cultures, only two were found to have infection on intraoperative gram-staining. The surgeon's operative assessment regarding the presence of infection, compared with the final pathological diagnosis, demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.70, a specificity of 0.87, and an accuracy of 0.82. All ten patients who had positive frozen sections were managed with excision arthroplasty; six of them subsequently had reimplantation, and the excision was the definitive procedure in the remaining four. One patient who had had a delayed reimplantation had a secondary skin slough and eventually was managed with an arthrodesis of the knee. In the group that had negative frozen sections, eighteen patients had a primary exchange revision arthroplasty and five had a delayed reimplantation. At the time of follow-up, one patient who had had a delayed reimplantation had radiographic loosening of the femoral component and was asymptomatic. One patient who had had a primary exchange arthroplasty was managed with a second revision because of aseptic loosening. There was no clinical recurrence of infection in any patient. The data indicate that analysis of frozen sections of periprosthetic tissue is a reliable predictor of the presence of active infection during revision joint arthroplasty. We recommend its use to differentiate aseptic from septic loosening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8550647     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199512000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  69 in total

1.  Osteomyelitis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.725

2.  [Proposal for the classification of the periprosthetic membrane from loosened hip and knee endoprostheses].

Authors:  L Morawietz; Th Gehrke; R-A Classen; B Barden; M Otto; T Hansen; Th Aigner; P Stiehl; J Neidel; J H Schröder; L Frommelt; Th Schubert; C Meyer-Scholten; A König; Ph Ströbel; Ch P Rader; S Kirschner; F Lintner; W Rüther; A Skwara; I Bos; J Kriegsmann; V Krenn
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  [Logistic requirements and biopsy of periprosthetic infections: what should be taken into consideration?].

Authors:  B Fink; P Schäfer; L Frommelt
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Feasibility and clinical utility of intraoperative consultation with frozen section in osseous lesions.

Authors:  Murat Sezak; Basak Doganavsargil; Burcin Kececi; Mehmet Argin; Dundar Sabah
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 5.  [Diagnostic strategies in cases of suspected periprosthetic infection of the knee. A review of the literature and current recommendations].

Authors:  H Gollwitzer; P Diehl; L Gerdesmeyer; W Mittelmeier
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Definition of periprosthetic joint infection: is there a consensus?

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; Christina Jacovides; Benjamin Zmistowski; Kwang Am Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Diagnosis of infection in hip and knee revision surgery: intraoperative frozen section analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Francés Borrego; Fernando Marco Martínez; Juan Luis Cebrian Parra; David Serfaty Grañeda; Rodrigo García Crespo; Luis López-Durán Stern
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  [Histopathologic diagnosis of infectious loosening of joint prostheses].

Authors:  I Bos; M Zagorski; C Boos; S Krüger
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 9.  [Histopathologic diagnostics in endoprosthetics: periprosthetic neosynovialitis, hypersensitivity reaction, and arthrofibrosis].

Authors:  V Krenn; M Otto; L Morawietz; T Hopf; M Jakobs; W Klauser; B Schwantes; T Gehrke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  PCR-based diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  Xinhua Qu; Zanjing Zhai; Huiwu Li; Haowei Li; Xuqiang Liu; Zhenan Zhu; You Wang; Guangwang Liu; Kerong Dai
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.