Improved diagnostic accuracy with the classification tree method for diagnosing low-grade periprosthetic joint infections by quantitative measurement of synovial fluid alpha-defensin and C-reactive protein.
High-grade
Joint infection
Low-grade
Septic joint failure
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
01
11
2018
accepted:
28
04
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
26
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The diagnosis of low-grade periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is challenging, because patients may present with unspecific symptoms, false-negative cultures, or marginally elevated values of serum biomarkers like C-reactive protein (CRP). This may lead to the unintended implantation of a revision prosthesis into an infected surgical site with a repeat risk of short-term failure. Conversely, false diagnosis of joint infection may result in multistage revision procedures, which expose the patient to unnecessary surgical procedures and inappropriate antibiotic treatment. Here, we investigated whether synovial biomarkers can preoperatively distinguish between aseptic prosthesis loosening and low-grade joint infection and the most accurate biomarker combinations. Inclusion criteria for the study were indication for revision arthroplasty due to aseptic implant failure, acute high-grade infection, or (suspected) low-grade infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for quantitative measurement of alpha defensin, CRP, interleukin (IL-6), IL-10, and lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP). The classification tree method revealed alpha defensin and CRP as the most suitable biomarker combination to distinguish between aseptic loosening and low-grade joint infection. The combination of CRP > 2.0 mg/L and alpha defensin > 90.000 pg/mL correctly identified nine of 11 patients with low-grade infection. Alpha defensin plus CRP seems to be the most helpful combination for pre-operative discrimination of aseptic loosening vs. low-grade joint infection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of low-grade periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is challenging, because patients may present with unspecific symptoms, false-negative cultures, or marginally elevated values of serum biomarkers like C-reactive protein (CRP). This may lead to the unintended implantation of a revision prosthesis into an infected surgical site with a repeat risk of short-term failure. Conversely, false diagnosis of joint infection may result in multistage revision procedures, which expose the patient to unnecessary surgical procedures and inappropriate antibiotic treatment. Here, we investigated whether synovial biomarkers can preoperatively distinguish between aseptic prosthesis loosening and low-grade joint infection and the most accurate biomarker combinations.
METHODS
Inclusion criteria for the study were indication for revision arthroplasty due to aseptic implant failure, acute high-grade infection, or (suspected) low-grade infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for quantitative measurement of alpha defensin, CRP, interleukin (IL-6), IL-10, and lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP).
RESULTS
The classification tree method revealed alpha defensin and CRP as the most suitable biomarker combination to distinguish between aseptic loosening and low-grade joint infection. The combination of CRP > 2.0 mg/L and alpha defensin > 90.000 pg/mL correctly identified nine of 11 patients with low-grade infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Alpha defensin plus CRP seems to be the most helpful combination for pre-operative discrimination of aseptic loosening vs. low-grade joint infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31127365
doi: 10.1007/s00264-019-04338-6
pii: 10.1007/s00264-019-04338-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
alpha-Defensins
0
C-Reactive Protein
9007-41-4
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
31-38Références
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120(10):570-4
pubmed: 11110138
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Dec;(225):238-46
pubmed: 3677512
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Oct;467(10):2606-12
pubmed: 19360453
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jan;473(1):198-203
pubmed: 24942960
N Engl J Med. 2007 Aug 16;357(7):654-63
pubmed: 17699815
Int Orthop. 2019 Jan;43(1):103-109
pubmed: 30099642
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Sep 3;96(17):1439-45
pubmed: 25187582
PLoS One. 2010 Feb 22;5(2):e9358
pubmed: 20179760
Bone Joint J. 2015 Feb;97-B(2):173-6
pubmed: 25628278
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;56(1):e1-e25
pubmed: 23223583
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Dec;14(8):952-6
pubmed: 10614886
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2229-35
pubmed: 25631170
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 14;351(16):1645-54
pubmed: 15483283
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95
pubmed: 11240971
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 Nov;65 Suppl 3:iii45-54
pubmed: 20876628
Histopathology. 2009 Jun;54(7):847-53
pubmed: 19635104
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):4006-9
pubmed: 25256621
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):69-88
pubmed: 12966280
Int Orthop. 2019 Jun;43(6):1303-1308
pubmed: 30415463
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):229-37
pubmed: 8020222
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 20;361(8):787-94
pubmed: 19692690
Int Orthop. 2019 Aug;43(8):1891-1898
pubmed: 30191275
Int Orthop. 2019 Nov;43(11):2457-2466
pubmed: 30659319
Int Orthop. 2014 Nov;38(11):2385-90
pubmed: 25027977
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jul;474(7):1610-5
pubmed: 26864855
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Nov;469(11):2992-4
pubmed: 21938532
J Clin Pathol. 2006 Jun;59(6):591-7
pubmed: 16731601