Diagnostic Accuracy for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Does Not Improve by a Combined Use of Glucose and Leukocyte Esterase Strip Reading as Diagnostic Parameters.
Combur test
arthroplasty
diagnostics
orthopedics
periprosthetic joint infection
urine strip test
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 May 2022
25 May 2022
Historique:
received:
20
04
2022
revised:
11
05
2022
accepted:
19
05
2022
entrez:
10
6
2022
pubmed:
11
6
2022
medline:
11
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The diagnosis of periprosthetic infections (PJI) can be challenging in clinical practice because the clinical presentations of aseptic loosening and low-grade infections are similar. Semiquantitative evaluation of leukocyte esterase (LE) in synovial fluid using a urine strip test has already established itself as a diagnostic method over the past decade. The analysis of LE in synovial fluid leads to a high number of false-positive test results. In the present study, the value of a combined semiquantitative determination of glucose and LE in synovial fluid to improve the diagnosis of PJI was investigated. Over a 4-year period, 145 synovial samples were collected from patients who developed joint effusion after arthroplasty. LE and glucose test strips were considered as an index test for the diagnosis of PJI. A ++ or +++ LE and a negative glucose test strip reading were considered as positive test results. Modified diagnostic criteria for PJI as recommended by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) served as the reference test, except that intraoperative findings were excluded. Forty-six out of 145 samples were classified as septic complication according to the reference test. In regard to PJI, our data showed that combined use of LE and glucose strip test reading displayed a 98.0% specificity (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.2% to 100%), a 50% sensitivity (95% CI: 35.6% to 64.4%), a 92% positive predictive value (95% CI: 81.4% to 100.0%), and an 80.3% negative predictive value (95% CI: 73.2% to 87.4%). In contrast, the exclusive analysis of LE on the urine strip to diagnose PJI demonstrated a 90.9% specificity (95% CI: 85.2% to 96.6%), a 67.4% sensitivity (95% CI: 53.8% to 80.9%), a 77.5% positive predictive value (95% CI: 64.6% to 90.4%), and an 85.7% negative predictive value (5% CI: 79.0% to 92.4%). A combination of LE and glucose test pad reading is considered superior as a potential "rule-in" method for the diagnosis of PJI compared with LE test pad analysis alone. However, combined LE and glucose synovial fluid testing also demonstrated lower test sensitivity and thus diagnostic accuracy compared with LE analysis alone. Therefore, combined glucose and LE test pad analysis does not represent a sufficient diagnostic standard to exclude PJI with certainty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35683369
pii: jcm11112979
doi: 10.3390/jcm11112979
pmc: PMC9181009
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Nov 19;96(22):1917-20
pubmed: 25410511
Anal Chem. 2020 Mar 3;92(5):3860-3866
pubmed: 32040916
In Vivo. 2021 May-Jun;35(3):1625-1632
pubmed: 33910845
Postgrad Med. 1980 Sep;68(3):175-9, 182-4
pubmed: 6159617
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Jan;28(1):193-5
pubmed: 22868070
Int J Artif Organs. 2011 Sep;34(9):847-55
pubmed: 22094565
Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Mar;36(3):591-598
pubmed: 27071629
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9S):S232-S235
pubmed: 28712799
J Orthop Res. 2020 Dec;38(12):2664-2674
pubmed: 32485031
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Jun;22(6):555-60
pubmed: 27040804
BMC Urol. 2004 Jun 02;4:4
pubmed: 15175113
Int Orthop. 2014 Nov;38(11):2385-90
pubmed: 25027977
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2
pubmed: 29551303
Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30(6):591-6
pubmed: 10225388
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2001 Dec;39(12):1221-6
pubmed: 11798081
Joint Bone Spine. 2013 Dec;80(6):604-7
pubmed: 23731636
Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;31(4):914-9
pubmed: 11049770
Saudi J Anaesth. 2016 Jul-Sep;10(3):328-31
pubmed: 27375390
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Dec 19;14(1):453
pubmed: 31856885
J Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;30(3):331-9
pubmed: 16677989
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Apr 17;101(8):739-744
pubmed: 30994592