Significant increase of pathogen detection rate by dry arthroscopic biopsies at suspected low-grade infection following total knee arthroplasty: a prospective observational study
- 119 Downloads
The differentiation between stiff-knee and low-grade periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the current diagnostic challenge in total knee (TKA) revision arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to investigate the additional value of dry biopsies, compared to wet biopsies, in patients presenting with knee stiffness following primary TKA.
Materials and methods
Single center, prospective observational study. Consecutive patients with joint stiffness of unknown origin following primary TKA were enrolled. Patient assessment followed the diagnostic standard algorithm. During diagnostic arthroscopy, synovial fluid (synovial WBC, PMN%) and five dry biopsies (dry) were collected. Then fluid was infused and another five microbiology (wet) and five histological biopsies gathered, all from identical locations. The primary outcome parameter was the difference between the pathogens in wet and dry biopsies.
71 patients (61% females, 67 ± 10 years) were eligible. Preoperative blood serology mean CRP (0.7 ± 1.5 mg/dl; p = 0.852), WBC (6.6 ± 1.7 G/l; p = 0.056), and synovial fluid mean WBC (1639 ± 2111; p = 0.602), PMN% (38 ± 28; p = 0.738) did not differ between patients with negative, positive wet or dry biopsies. The histology was in 11% positive (p = 0.058). In 32% at least one pathogen was detected, 48% from wet, 44% from dry biopsies. An inhomogeneous distribution was found. Cutibacterium acnes (100%) was solely found in wet, Micrococcus luteus (75%), Staphylococcus capitis (67%), and Micrococcus lylae (100%) were predominantly found in dry biopsies. Additional dry biopsies increased the pathogen detection rate by 49%.
The addition of dry biopsies to the current standard diagnostic algorithm for PJI increased the pathogen detection rate by 49%.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Periprosthetic joint infection Diagnostic Arthroscopy Biopsies
- 7.Grau L, Gunder MA, Schneiderbauer M (2017) Difficult-to-detect low-grade infections responsible for poor outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 46(3):E148–E153Google Scholar
- 8.Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(11):2992–2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Della Valle C, Parvizi J, Bauer TW, DiCesare PE, Evans RP, Segreti J, Spangehl M, Watters WC, Keith M, Turkelson CM, Wies JL, Sluka P, Hitchcock K, Surgeons AAoO (2011) American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93(14):1355–1357. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.9314ebo CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Massin P, Delory T, Lhotellier L, Pasquier G, Roche O, Cazenave A, Estellat C, Jenny JY (2016) Infection recurrence factors in one- and two-stage total knee prosthesis exchanges. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(10):3131–3139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3884-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Pandey R, Berendt AR, Athanasou NA (2000) Histological and microbiological findings in non-infected and infected revision arthroplasty tissues. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. Oxford skeletal infection research and intervention service. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120(10):570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Balato G, Franceschini V, Ascione T, Lamberti A, Balboni F, Baldini A (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid, blood markers, and microbiological testing in chronic knee prosthetic infections. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(2):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2832-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Baré J, MacDonald SJ, Bourne RB (2006) Preoperative evaluations in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:40–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000218727.14097.d5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Melendez DP, Greenwood-Quaintance KE, Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Mandrekar JN, Hanssen AD, Patel R (2016) Evaluation of a genus- and group-specific rapid PCR assay panel on synovial fluid for diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. J Clin Microbiol 54(1):120–126. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02302-15 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.de Saint Vincent B, Migaud H, Senneville E, Loiez C, Pasquier G, Girard J, Putman S (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of the alpha defensin lateral flow device (Synovasure™) for periprosthetic infections in microbiologically complex situations: a study of 42 cases in a French referral centre. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.01.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ, Hanssen AD, Unni KK, Osmon DR, Mandrekar JN, Cockerill FR, Steckelberg JM, Greenleaf JF, Patel R (2007) Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 357(7):654–663. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061588 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Kalson NS, Borthwick LA, Mann DA, Deehan DJ, Lewis P, Mann C, Mont MA, Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik S, Williams FM, Toms A, Argenson JN, Bellemans J, Bhave A, Furnes O, Gollwitzer H, Haddad FS, Hofmann S, Krenn V (2016) International consensus on the definition and classification of fibrosis of the knee joint. Bone Jt J 98-B(11):1479–1488. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.37957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Fink B, Makowiak C, Fuerst M, Berger I, Schäfer P, Frommelt L (2008) The value of synovial biopsy, joint aspiration and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of late peri-prosthetic infection of total knee replacements. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90(7):874–878. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Ghanem E, Antoci V Jr, Pulido L, Joshi A, Hozack W, Parvizi J (2009) The use of receiver operating characteristics analysis in determining erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels in diagnosing periprosthetic infection prior to revision total hip arthroplasty. Int J Infect Dis 13(6):e444–e449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2009.02.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RSJ, Sharkey PF, Keshavarzi N, Aggarwal A, Barrack RL (2008) Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(8):1637–1643. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.McArthur BA, Abdel MP, Taunton MJ, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD (2015) Seronegative infections in hip and knee arthroplasty: periprosthetic infections with normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level. Bone Jt J 97-B(7):939–944. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B7.35500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Aggarwal VK, Bakhshi H, Ecker NU, Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2014) Organism profile in periprosthetic joint infection: pathogens differ at two arthroplasty infection referral centers in Europe and in the United States. J Knee 27(5):399–406. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1364102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Malhas AM, Lawton R, Reidy M, Nathwani D, Clift BA (2015) Causative organisms in revision total hip and knee arthroplasty for infection: Increasing multi-antibiotic resistance in coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and the implications for antibiotic prophylaxis. Surgeon 13(5):250–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2014.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar