Percutaneous CT-guided sacroiliac joint sampling for infection: aspiration, biopsy, and technique
- 107 Downloads
To evaluate methods of CT-guided sacroiliac joint sampling in patients with suspected infection.
Materials and methods
All CT-guided sacroiliac joint sampling procedures for suspected infection were reviewed for sampling type (aspiration, lavage aspiration, biopsy), microbiology results, and clinical and imaging follow-up. The primary gold standard was anatomic pathology. If pathology was not available, then positive blood culture with the same organism as SIJ sampling, imaging and clinical follow-up, or clinical follow-up only were used. Anterior and posterior joint distention was evaluated by MRI within 7 days of the procedure.
A total of 34 patients (age 39 ± 20 (range, 6–75) years; 21 F, 13 M) were included. Aspiration samples only were obtained in 13/34 (38%) cases, biopsy samples only in 9/34 (26%) cases, and both samples in 12/34 (35%) cases. There was an overall 54% sensitivity and 86% specificity. For the aspiration samples, sensitivity and specificity were 60 and 81%, respectively, compared to 45 and 90% for the biopsy samples. In cases with both samples, biopsy did not add additional microbial information. Seventeen (17/34, 50%) patients had an MRI. The anterior joint was more distended than the posterior joint in 15/17 (88%) of patients, and this difference was significant (P = 0.0003). All of these 17 patients had an attempted aspiration by a posterior approach; 6/17 (35%) resulted in a successful aspiration.
Aspiration of the sacroiliac joint has a higher sensitivity than biopsy and should always be attempted first. MRI may be helpful for procedure planning.
KeywordsSacroiliac joint Septic arthritis CT-guided aspiration Biopsy Osteomyelitis
Compliance with ethical standards
This investigation was approved by the Institutional Review Board and was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
The aforementioned authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.