Periprosthetic Infection: What Are the Diagnostic Challenges?
Authors:
- Javad ParviziJPJavad Parvizi
- Elie GhanemEGElie Ghanem
- Sarah MenasheSMSarah Menashe
- Robert L. BarrackRBRobert L. Barrack
- Thomas W. BauerTBThomas W. Bauer
- 1 December 2006
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
- Vol. 88 (suppl_4) , 138-147
Abstract
Periprosthetic infection remains one of the most challenging complications of total joint arthroplasty. Despite the substantial reduction in the prevalence of this complication over the last two decades, periprosthetic infection is the second most common complication of joint arthroplasty, after loosening1,2. Infection has been reported to occur in association with 1% to 4% of primary total knee arthroplasties3,4 and about 1% of primary total hip arthroplasties5,6. The prevalence of periprosthetic infection after revision arthroplasty is much higher, reported to be 3.2% for hips and 5.6% for knees7. It is believed that the prevalence of periprosthetic infection is on the rise once again8. The treatment of periprosthetic infection differs vastly from the treatment of aseptic loosening. Hence, it is paramount to distinguish between septic and aseptic joint failures preoperatively. The diagnosis of infection after total joint arthroplasty continues to pose a challenge, particularly when it presents as a subacute or low-grade infection. Currently, there is no universally accepted diagnostic test or modality that is absolutely accurate or reliable for the determination of infection. The diagnosis of periprosthetic infection relies on clinical suspicion and a combined armamentarium of serological and imaging modalities9, with isolation of organisms from the intraoperative culture samples constituting the “gold standard” for ultimate diagnosis10,11. Serological tests, including the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and the C-reactive protein level, are frequently used to screen for septic and aseptic failure of total joint arthroplasty and have a relatively high sensitivity and specificity when combined12. However, their specificity and sensitivity vary depending on the cutoff values chosen10. The role of analysis of synovial fluid for determination of the leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage, although frequently employed, remains unclear. …Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diagnosis of Periprosthetic InfectionJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2006
- Long-Term Results of the Modified Hoffman Procedure in the Rheumatoid ForefootJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2006
- Periprosthetic SepsisClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2004
- Management of Infection Associated with Prosthetic JointsInfection, 2003
- Why Are Total Knee Arthroplasties Failing Today?Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2002
- Infection in Total Knee ReplacementClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2001
- Histological and microbiological findings in non-infected and infected revision arthroplasty tissuesArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2000
- The predictive value of indium-III leukocyte scans in the diagnosis of infected total hip, knee, or resection arthroplastiesThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2000
- Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 casesActa Orthopaedica, 2000
- Evaluation of the painful prosthetic jointThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 1991