Advertisement

FDG PET/CT in Assessment of Prosthetic Joint Infection

  • Pradeep Thapa
  • Ashwini Kalshetty
  • Sandip Basu
Chapter
Part of the Clinicians’ Guides to Radionuclide Hybrid Imaging book series (CGRHI)

Abstract

The indications and potential use of FDG PET CT in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have not evolved fully. Most studies have compared the accuracy of FDG PET/CT with clinical parameters and other biological and radiological markers. However, FDG PET CT can also guide tissue biopsy or aspiration to increase the yield and towards accurate diagnosis. FDG uptake in mid-shaft of the implant at the bone–prosthesis interface in hip arthroplasty or increased FDG uptake in the bone–prosthesis interface for knee arthroplasty compared with adjacent soft tissue are the usually accepted criteria for diagnosis of infection. Extra information can be actively sought for from FDG PET/CT beyond just classifying into infection present or not and include the presence of periosteal reaction, peri-prosthetic osteolysis, peri-prosthetic calcification, sinus tract description, localization of infection, extent of infection, involvement of joint space, stability of joint/prosthesis, the integrity of surrounding soft tissue etc. which can be of additional value in guiding the orthopedic surgeon in the management of these patients. If PJI is due to hematogenous spread of infection then, FDG PET/CT may additionally help in localization of distant source of infection. The heterogeneity of criteria, lack of specificity in diagnosis, and relatively lower yield of PET studies suggest that they should be examined further by larger prospective trials.

References

  1. 1.
    Steckelberg JM, Osmon DR. Prosthetic joint infections. In: Waldvogel FAB, Bisno AL, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 2000. p. 173–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1645–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1422–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sia IG, Berbari EF, Karchmer AW. Prosthetic joint infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2005;19:885–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC, Steckelberg JM, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS, Osmon DR. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(5):1247–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parvizi J, Gehrke T, International Consensus Group on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(7):1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trampuz A, Steckelberg JM, Osmon DR, Cockerill FR, Hanssen AD, Patel R. Advances in the laboratory diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Rev Med Microbiol. 2003;14:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trampuz A, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, Mandrekar J, Steckelberg JM, Patel R. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am J Med. 2004;117:556–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Athanasou NA, Pandey R, de Steiger R, Crook D, Smith PM. Diagnosis of infection by frozen section during revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:28–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel R, Alijanipour P, Parvizi J. Advancements in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Open Orthop J. 2016;10:654–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basu S, Chryssikos T, Moghadam-Kia S, et al. Positron emission tomography as a diagnostic tool in infection: present role and future possibilities. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39:36–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basu S, Zhuang H, Torigian DA, et al. Functional imaging of inflammatory diseases using nuclear medicine techniques. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39:124–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwee TC, Basu S, Torigian DA, et al. FDG-PET imaging for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection: discussing the facts, rectifying the unsupported claims and call for evidence-based and scientific approach. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:464–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhuang H, Duarte PS, Pourdehnad M, Maes A, Van Acker F, Shnier D, Garino JP, Fitzgerald RH, Alavi A. The promising role of 18F-FDG PET in detecting infectedlower limb prosthesis implants. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(1):44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chryssikos T, Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Newberg A, Zhuang H, Alavi A. FDG-PETimaging can diagnose periprosthetic infection of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1338–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basu S, Kwee TC, Saboury B, Garino JP, Nelson CL, Zhuang H, Parsons M, Chen W, Kumar R, Salavati A, Werner TJ, Alavi A. FDG PET for diagnosing infection in hip and knee prostheses: prospective study in 221 prostheses and subgroup comparison with combined (111)In-labeled leukocyte/(99m)Tc-sulfur colloid bone marrowimaging in 88 prostheses. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(7):609–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mumme T, Reinartz P, Alfer J, Müller-Rath R, Buell U, Wirtz DC. Diagnosticvalues of positron emission tomography versus triple-phase bone scan in hiparthroplasty loosening. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(5):322–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delank KS, Schmidt M, Michael JW, Dietlein M, Schicha H, Eysel P. Theimplications of 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis of endoprosthetic loosening andinfection in hip and knee arthroplasty: results from a prospective, blindedstudy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanquickenborne B, Maes A, Nuyts J, Van Acker F, Stuyck J, Mulier M, Verbruggen A, Mortelmans L. The value of (18)FDG-PET for the detection ofinfected hip prosthesis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(5):705–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gravius S, Gebhard M, Ackermann D, Büll U, Hermanns-Sachweh B, Mumme T. Analysis of 18F-FDG uptake pattern in PET for diagnosis of aseptic looseningversus prosthesis infection after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective pilotstudy. Nuklearmedizin. 2010;49(3):115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chacko TK, Zhuang H, Stevenson K, Moussavian B, Alavi A. The importance of thelocation of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in periprosthetic infection in painful hip prostheses. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23(9):851–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hao R, Yuan L, Kan Y, Yang J. 18F-FDG PET for diagnosing painful arthroplasty/prosthetic joint infection. Clin Transl Imaging. 2017;5(4):315–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-017-0237-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhuang H, Chacko TK, Hickeson M, Stevenson K, Feng Q, Ponzo F, et al. Persistent non-specific FDG uptake on PET imaging following hip arthroplasty. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1328–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, Berthold T, Von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology. 2003;226(2):577–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osman S, Danpure HJ. The use of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose as a potential in vitro agent for labelling human granulocytes for clinical studies by positron emission tomography. Int J Rad Appl Instrum B. 1992;19:183–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dumarey N, Egrise D, Blocklet D, Stallenberg B, Remmelink M, del Marmol V, Van Simaeys G, Jacobs F, Goldman S. Imaging infection with 18F-FDG-labeled leukocyte PET/CT: initial experience in 21 patients. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(4):625–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aksoy SY, Asa S, Ozhan M, Ocak M, Sager MS, Erkan ME, Halac M, Kabasakal L, Sönmezoglu K, Kanmaz B. FDG and FDG-labelled leucocyte PET/CT in the imaging ofprosthetic joint infection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(3):556–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basu S, Kwee TC, Hess S. FDG-PET/CT imaging of infected bones and prosthetic joints. Curr Mol Imaging. 2014;3(3):225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pradeep Thapa
    • 1
  • Ashwini Kalshetty
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandip Basu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research CentreTata Memorial Centre AnnexeMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Homi Bhabha National InstituteMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations