header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

DIAGNOSING PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION: A STEP-BY-STEP EVALUATION PROTOCOL

The Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) Spring 2018 Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 20–23 May 2018.



Abstract

The AAOS clinical practice guideline for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the MSIS definition of PJI were both “game changers” in terms of diagnosing PJI and the reporting of outcomes for research. However, the introduction of new diagnostic modalities, including biomarkers, prompted a re-look at the diagnostic criteria for PJI. Further there was a desire to develop an evidence-based, validated algorithm for the diagnosis of PJI.

This multi-institutional study led by Dr. Jay Parvizi examined revision total joint arthroplasty patients from three academic institutions. For development of the algorithm, infected and aseptic cohorts were defined. PJI cases were defined using only the major criteria from the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition (n=684). Aseptic cases underwent revision for a non-infective indication and did not show evidence of PJI or undergo a reoperation for any reason within 2 years (n=820). Risk factors, clinical findings, serum and synovial markers as well as intraoperative findings were assessed. A stepwise approach using random forest analysis and multivariate regression was used to generate relative weights for each of the various variables assessed at each stage to create an algorithm for diagnosing PJI using the 3 most important tests from each step. The algorithm was formally validated on a separate cohort of 422 patients, 222 who were treated with a 2-stage exchange for PJI who subsequently failed secondary to PJI within one year and 200 patients who underwent revision surgery for an aseptic diagnosis and had no evidence of PJI within two years and did not undergo a reoperation for any reason.

The first step in evaluating PJI should include a physical examination to identify a sinus tract, followed by serum testing for C-reactive protein (cut-off value 1mg/dl), D-dimer (cut-off value 860ng/mL) and/or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (cut-off value 30mm/hr) in that order of importance. If at least one of these are elevated, or if there is a high clinical suspicion, joint aspiration should be performed, sending the fluid obtained for a synovial fluid white blood-cell (cut-off value 3,000 wbc/uL) or leukocyte esterase strip testing, polymorphonuclear percentage (cut-off value 80%) and culture. Alpha defensin did not show added benefit as a routine diagnostic test.

Major diagnostic criteria are the same whereby the presence of a sinus tract or (2) positive cultures showing the same organism defines PJI.

Special care should be taken in cases of ALTR (failed metal-on-metal bearing), crystalline deposition disease, inflammatory arthritis flares or slow growing organisms.

In the rare cases where no fluid is obtained at the time of an attempted aspiration and revision surgery is not planned, then this is the rare scenario where nuclear imaging (my preference is an indium labeled white blood cell scan) or a biopsy can be performed.

The updated definition of PJI demonstrated a higher sensitivity of 97.7% when compared to the MSIS criteria (79.3%) and the ICM definition (86.9%), with a similar specificity of 99.5%. However, just over 2% of patients examined do fall into the “inconclusive” category.

The proposed diagnostic algorithm demonstrated a high overall sensitivity (96.9%) and specificity (99.5%).