Advertisement

18F FDG-PET/CT has poor diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing shoulder PJI

  • Thomas Falstie-JensenEmail author
  • J. Lange
  • H. Daugaard
  • M. H. Vendelbo
  • A. K. Sørensen
  • B. Zerahn
  • J. Ovesen
  • K. Søballe
  • L. C. Gormsen
  • on behalf of the ROSA study-group
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Orthopedics

Abstract

Purpose

Chronic low-grade periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of a shoulder replacement can be challenging to diagnose. 18F-FDG PET/CT is suggested as a modality to diagnose lower-limb PJI, but no studies on shoulder replacements exist. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing chronic PJI of the shoulder.

Methods

Patients evaluated for a failed shoulder replacement during a 3-year period were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent pre-operative 18F-FDG PET/CT, and were evaluated for signs of infection by three independent reviewers using shoulder-specific criteria. Interrater-agreement was calculated between the reviewers. If the patient had revision surgery, biopsy specimens were obtained and cultured with bacterial growth in the cultures serving as gold standard of infection.

Results

A total of 86 patients were included in the study. Nine patients were 18F-FDG PET/CT positive for infection, with only three true positive. Using the gold standard, infection was diagnosed after revision surgery in 22 cases. All infections were chronic and caused by low-virulent microbes. The sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/CT was 0.14 95% CI (0.03–0.36), specificity 0.91 95% CI (0.81–0.97), positive predictive value was 0.40 95% CI (0.15–0.71) and negative predictive value 0.71 95% CI (0.67–0.75). The inter-observer agreement was 0.56 (Fleiss’ kappa), indicating moderate agreement of the visual FDG-PET evaluation using the shoulder-specific criteria.

Conclusion

18F-FDG PET/CT has poor diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing low-grade PJI of the shoulder. 18F-FDG PET/CT cannot be recommended as a part of the routine preoperative workup to diagnose low-grade infection of a shoulder replacement.

Keywords

FDG-PET PJI Infection Shoulder Periprosthetic joint infection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Radiologic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Authors’ contributions

TFJ conceived the study, collected data, analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript. JL participated in conceiving the study, and revised the manuscript. HD revised the manuscript. MHV reviewed images. BZ reviewed images and revised the manuscript. JOV collected data and revised the manuscript. KS participated in conceiving the study, and revised the final manuscript. AKS collected data and revised the manuscript. LCG participated in conceiving the study, reviewed images, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author T Falstie-Jensen declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author J Lange declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author H Daugaard declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author MH Vendelbo declares that he has no conflict of interest. AKB Sørensen declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author B Zerahn declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author J Ovesen declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author K Søballe declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author LC Gormsen declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

(T Falstie-Jensen) has received a grant from Aarhus University (no grant no.) covering part of the fee for the PhD training program. Furthermore, corresponding author has received a research grant from A. P. Møllers og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond til almene Formaal (no grant no.) covering study expenses related to the PhD. The two institutions have not in any way been involved in data collection, data analysis, preparation of, or editing of the manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee (ref. no. 1–10–72-229-15) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

259_2019_4381_MOESM1_ESM.docx (39 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 39 kb)
259_2019_4381_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 18 kb)
259_2019_4381_MOESM3_ESM.docx (885 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 884 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Parvizi J, Namdari S. Periprosthetic shoulder infection in the United States: incidence and economic burden. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(5):741–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nelson GN, Davis DE, Namdari S. Outcomes in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Should Elb Surg. 2016;25(8);1337–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Florschutz AV, Lane PD, Crosby LA. Infection after primary anatomic versus primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(8):1296–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelly JD 2nd, Hobgood ER. Positive culture rate in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(9):2343–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0875-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foruria AM, Fox TJ, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Clinical meaning of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22(5):620–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Both A, Klatte TO, Lubke A, Buttner H, Hartel MJ, Grossterlinden LG, et al. Growth of Cutibacterium acnes is common on osteosynthesis material of the shoulder in patients without signs of infection. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(5):580–4.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1489095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Padegimas EM, Lawrence C, Narzikul AC, Zmistowski BM, Abboud JA, Williams GR, et al. Future surgery after revision shoulder arthroplasty: the impact of unexpected positive cultures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(6):975–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kheir MM, Tan TL, Ackerman CT, Modi R, Foltz C, Parvizi J. Culturing periprosthetic joint infection: number of samples, growth duration, and organisms. J Arthroplast. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.018.
  9. 9.
    Mook WR, Garrigues GE. Diagnosis and management of periprosthetic shoulder infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(11):956–65.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Topolski MS, Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision shoulder arthroplasty with positive intraoperative cultures: the value of preoperative studies and intraoperative histology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(4):402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Updegrove GF, Armstrong AD, Kim HM. Preoperative and intraoperative infection workup in apparently aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(3):491–500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Signore A, Sconfienza LM, Borens O, Glaudemans A, Casar-Pullicino V, Trampuz A, et al. Consensus document for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: a joint paper by the EANM, EBJIS, and ESR (with ESCMID endorsement). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(4):971–88 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-4263-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gemmel F, Van den Wyngaert H, Love C, Welling MM, Gemmel P, Palestro CJ. Prosthetic joint infections: radionuclide state-of-the-art imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):892–909.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2062-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Love C, Marwin SE, Tomas MB, Krauss ES, Tronco GG, Bhargava KK, et al. Diagnosing infection in the failed joint replacement: a comparison of coincidence detection 18F-FDG and 111In-labeled leukocyte/99mTc-sulfur colloid marrow imaging. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(11):1864–71.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falstie-Jensen T, Daugaard H, Soballe K, Ovesen J, Arveschoug AK, Lange J, et al. Labeled white blood cell/bone marrow single-photon emission computed tomography with computed tomography fails in diagnosing chronic periprosthetic shoulder joint infection. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(6):1040–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basu S, Chryssikos T, Moghadam-Kia S, Zhuang H, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Positron emission tomography as a diagnostic tool in infection: present role and future possibilities. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39(1):36–51.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chryssikos T, Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Newberg A, Zhuang H, Alavi A. FDG-PET imaging can diagnose periprosthetic infection of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1338–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0237-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Alavi A. FDG-PET for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection: systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(11):2122–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0887-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frangiamore SJ, Saleh A, Kovac MF, Grosso MJ, Zhang X, Bauer TW, et al. Synovial fluid interleukin-6 as a predictor of periprosthetic shoulder infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(1):63–70.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kamme C, Lindberg L. Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in deep infections after total hip arthroplasty: differential diagnosis between infectious and non-infectious loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;154:201–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reinartz P, Mumme T, Hermanns B, Cremerius U, Wirtz DC, Schaefer WM, et al. Radionuclide imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty: positron-emission tomography versus triple-phase bone scanning. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):465–70.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B4.14954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76(5):378–82.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gelderman SJ, Jutte PC, Boellaard R, Ploegmakers JJW, Vallez Garcia D, Kampinga GA, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET uptake in non-infected total hip prostheses. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(6):634–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1525931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Love C, Palestro CJ. Nuclear medicine imaging of bone infections. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(7):632–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verberne SJ, Raijmakers PG, Temmerman OP. The accuracy of imaging techniques in the assessment of periprosthetic hip infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(19):1638–45.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayer-Wagner S, Mayer W, Maegerlein S, Linke R, Jansson V, Muller PE. Use of 18F-FDG-PET in the diagnosis of endoprosthetic loosening of knee and hip implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(10):1231–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1000-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verberne SJ, Sonnega RJ, Temmerman OP, Raijmakers PG. What is the accuracy of nuclear imaging in the assessment of periprosthetic knee infection? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(5):1395–410.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5218-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aksoy SY, Asa S, Ozhan M, Ocak M, Sager MS, Erkan ME, et al. FDG and FDG-labelled leucocyte PET/CT in the imaging of prosthetic joint infection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(3):556–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2597-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Delank KS, Schmidt M, Michael JW, Dietlein M, Schicha H, Eysel P. The implications of 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis of endoprosthetic loosening and infection in hip and knee arthroplasty: results from a prospective, blinded study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Verberne SJ, Temmerman OPP, Vuong BH, Raijmakers PG. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for diagnosing periprosthetic hip infection: the importance of diagnostic criteria. Int Orthop. 2018;42(9):2025–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3931-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keener JD, Chalmers PN, Yamaguchi K. The humeral implant in shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(6):427–38.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hsu JE, Hackett DJ, Jr., Vo KV, Matsen FA, 3rd. What can be learned from an analysis of 215 glenoid component failures? J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(3):478–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tan TL, Kheir MM, Shohat N, Tan DD, Kheir M, Chen C, et al. Culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection: an update on what to expect. JB JS Open Access. 2018;3(3):e0060.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.17.00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nilsdotter-Augustinsson A, Briheim G, Herder A, Ljunghusen O, Wahlstrom O, Ohman L. Inflammatory response in 85 patients with loosened hip prostheses: a prospective study comparing inflammatory markers in patients with aseptic and septic prosthetic loosening. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(5):629–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grosso MJ, Frangiamore SJ, Ricchetti ET, Bauer TW, Iannotti JP. Sensitivity of frozen section histology for identifying Propionibacterium acnes infections in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(6):442–7.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pajarinen J, Cenni E, Savarino L, Gomez-Barrena E, Tamaki Y, Takagi M, et al. Profile of toll-like receptor-positive cells in septic and aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasty implants. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;94(1):84–92.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Falstie-Jensen
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Lange
    • 2
  • H. Daugaard
    • 3
  • M. H. Vendelbo
    • 4
    • 5
  • A. K. Sørensen
    • 6
  • B. Zerahn
    • 7
  • J. Ovesen
    • 1
  • K. Søballe
    • 1
  • L. C. Gormsen
    • 4
  • on behalf of the ROSA study-group
  1. 1.Orthopedic Department, Shoulder and elbow sectionAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Orthopedic DepartmentHorsens Regional HospitalHorsensDenmark
  3. 3.Orthopedic DepartmentGentofte HospitalGentofteDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET-CenterAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  5. 5.Department of BiomedicineAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  6. 6.Orthopedic DepartmentHerlev HospitalHerlevDenmark
  7. 7.Department of Clinical PhysiologyHerlev HospitalHerlevDenmark

Personalised recommendations