Sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values of microbiological culture techniques for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection

Article English OPEN
Jordan, Robert W. ; Smith, Nicholas A. ; Saithna, Adnan ; Sprowson, Andrew P. ; Foguet, Pedro (2014)

Background. Identifying the microorganism in a prosthetic joint infection is the key to appropriately targeting antimicrobial treatment. Despite the availability of various techniques, no single test is considered the definitive gold standard. Aim. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values for a variety of culture techniques. Methods. We performed a retrospective case series of 219 patients undergoing revision surgery of their hip or knee replacement between May 2004 and February 2013. The patients were classified as either infected or noninfected according to criteria set out by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The number and type of samples taken intraoperatively varied between cases but included tissue samples and fluid sent in either blood culture vials or sterile containers. Results. The highest sensitivity was found with blood culture vials (0.85) compared to fluid in sterile containers (0.26) and tissues samples (0.32). Blood culture vials also had a better specificity and positive and negative predictive values profile. Conclusion. We conclude that, of the techniques studied, fluid in blood culture vials had the best profile for the correct identification of microorganisms and advocate its use.
  • References (31)
    31 references, page 1 of 4

    [1] S. Nasser, “Prevention and treatment of sepsis in total hip replacement surgery,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 265-277, 1992.

    [2] G. P. Du,f P. F. Lachiewicz, and S. S. Kelley, “Aspiration of the knee joint before revision arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 331, pp. 132-139, 1996.

    [3] A. W. Blom, J. Brown, A. H. Taylor, G. Pattison, S. Whitehouse, and G. C. Bannister, “Infection aeftr total knee arthroplasty,” eTh Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery B, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 688-691, 2004.

    [4] D. M. Urquhart, F. S. Hanna, S. L. Brennan et al., “Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection aeftr primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review,” eTh Journal of Arthroplasty, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1216-1222, 2010.

    [5] S. Ridgeway, J. Wilson, A. Charlet, G. Katafos, A. Pearson, and R. Coello, “Infection of the surgical site aeftr arthroplasty of the hip,” eTh Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery B , vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 844-850, 2005.

    [6] J. E. Phillips, T. P. Crane, M. Noy, T. S. Elliott, and R. J. Grimer, “eTh incidence of deep prosthetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: a 15-year prospective survey,” eTh Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery B, vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 943-948, 2006.

    [7] D. C. Valle, J. Parvizi, T. W. Bauer et al., “Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 760-770, 2010.

    [8] C. D. Valle, J. Parvizi, T. W. Bauer et al., “American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee,” ehT Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery A , vol. 93, no. 14, pp. 1355- 1357, 2011.

    [9] B. L. Atkins, N. Athanasou, J. J. Deeks et al., “Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prostheticjoint infection at revision arthroplasty,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2932-2939, 1998.

    [10] J. Parvizi, E. Ghanem, P. Sharkey, A. Aggarwal, S. J. Burnett, and R. L. Barrack, “Diagnosis of infected total knee: findings of a multicenter database,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 466, no. 11, pp. 2628-2633, 2008.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark