Gallo J, Lužná P, Holinka M, Ehrmann J, Zapletalová J, Lošťák J
Ortopedická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc.
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2015;82(2):126-34.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY A consensual classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane obtained at revision total joint arthroplasty was published by Morawietz et al. in 2006. Based on histomorphological criteria, four types of periprosthetic membrane were proposed: type I, aseptic failure; type II, septic failure; type III, combined type (carrying signs of both type I and II); and type IV, indeterminate type. The aim of this study was to find out whether and to what extent the Morawietz system would be suitable for use at an independent institution involved in the evaluation of periprosthetic membranes for a long time. Should it appear that the institution achieved an equally good or even better agreement between the clinical diagnosis and the histopathological finding, this consensus classification could be recommended for routine use. MATERIAL AND METHODS The samples of periprosthetic tissue evaluated in this study were obtained during surgery from the following groups of patients: 66 patients with aseptic loosening of total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty, 15 patients with infection of THA, 16 patients with THA without any signs of aseptic loosening, osteolysis or infection; 8 patients with hip osteoarthritis and 8 patients with knee osteoarthritis. Sample collection and processing (for purposes of histomorphological evaluation and immunohistochemical staining) was performed according to the established protocol. The tissue samples evaluation was made by an experienced pathologist hand in hand with the method described in the original paper by Morawietz et al. For a more detailed tissue analysis, selected antibodies (CD4, CD8, CD20, IFN-γ and Hsp-60) were visualized by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS The majority of samples from aseptic reoperations were classified as membranes of the type I (79%) and III (16%). Specimens retrieved from septic cases were mostly classified as membranes of type II and III (60% together). The septic membranes showed a significantly higher expression of CD20 protein when compared with both the aseptic (p < 0.0001) and control THA samples (p = 0.003). The membranes retrieved from the surroundings of a stable THA without osteolysis and infection had lower expression levels of Hsp60 and IFN-γ, when compared with those from both aseptic and septic loosening. Finally, Hsp-60 expression was significantly higher in osteoarthritic tissue than in samples from stable THA (p = 0.041). DISCUSSION Morawietz et al. proposed a standardized classification system for evaluation of periprosthetic tissue. As any attempt at generalization of a complex issue, this proposal has certain shortcomings. One of these is poor detection of chronic and low-grade infections. A method that would improve the conventional counting of polymorphonuclear leukocytes is still being sought. In this connection, immunostaining for CD20 combined with an assessment of antimicrobial peptides may be a promising option. The supplementary specimen staining showed that pseudosynovial tissue is much more active in patients carrying infection and the least active in samples from stable THA in which certain tolerance and thus tissue homeostasis might be expected. CONCLUSIONS 1. In this study the distribution of findings classified according to the Morawietz system was similar to the results published in the original study from 2006. 2. The definition of an aseptic membrane (type I) in the Morawietz system meets the requirements of clinical practice (agreement, about 80%). 3. An increased sensitivity for infectious membrane detection can be achieved by using supplementary immunohistochemical staining effective particularly in chronic and low-grade infections. 4. Painless and stable THAs typically have very low expression levels of CD4, CD20 and Hsp-60 proteins, and interferon- -gamma (IFN-γ) as well. Key words: total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, aseptic loosening, prosthetic joint infection, tissue analysis, membranes, CD receptors, Hsp-60 protein, IFN-γ.
研究目的 莫拉维茨等人于2006年发表了关于翻修全关节置换术中获得的假体周围界面膜的共识分类。基于组织形态学标准,提出了四种类型的假体周围膜:I型,无菌性失败;II型,感染性失败;III型,混合型(兼具I型和II型的特征);IV型,不确定型。本研究的目的是查明莫拉维茨系统在一个长期参与假体周围膜评估的独立机构中是否适用以及适用程度如何。如果该机构在临床诊断和组织病理学发现之间达成了同样良好甚至更好的一致性,那么这种共识分类可推荐用于常规使用。材料与方法 本研究中评估的假体周围组织样本是在手术期间从以下几组患者中获取的:66例全髋关节置换术(THA)或膝关节置换术无菌性松动患者,15例THA感染患者,16例无任何无菌性松动、骨溶解或感染迹象的THA患者;8例髋骨关节炎患者和8例膝骨关节炎患者。样本采集和处理(用于组织形态学评估和免疫组织化学染色)按照既定方案进行。组织样本评估由一位经验丰富的病理学家按照莫拉维茨等人原始论文中描述的方法进行。为了进行更详细的组织分析,通过免疫组织化学观察选定的抗体(CD4、CD8、CD20、IFN-γ和Hsp-60)。结果 无菌翻修手术的大多数样本被分类为I型(79%)和III型(16%)膜。从感染病例中取出的标本大多被分类为II型和III型膜(共60%)。与无菌样本(p < 0.0001)和对照THA样本(p = 0.003)相比,感染性膜显示出CD20蛋白的表达明显更高。与无菌性和感染性松动的样本相比,从无骨溶解和感染的稳定THA周围取出的膜Hsp60和IFN-γ表达水平较低。最后,骨关节炎组织中Hsp-60的表达明显高于稳定THA的样本(p = 0.041)。讨论 莫拉维茨等人提出了一种用于评估假体周围组织的标准化分类系统。作为对一个复杂问题的任何概括尝试,该提议都有一定的缺点。其中之一是对慢性和低度感染的检测不佳。仍在寻找一种能改进传统多形核白细胞计数的方法。在这方面,CD20免疫染色结合抗菌肽评估可能是一个有前途的选择。补充标本染色显示,携带感染的患者假滑膜组织活性更高,而在稳定THA的样本中活性最低,在稳定THA样本中可能预期有一定的耐受性,从而有组织内稳态。结论 1. 在本研究中,根据莫拉维茨系统分类的结果分布与2006年原始研究中发表的结果相似。2. 莫拉维茨系统中无菌膜(I型)的定义符合临床实践要求(一致性约为80%)。3. 通过使用补充免疫组织化学染色,特别是在慢性和低度感染中有效的染色,可以提高感染性膜检测的敏感性。4. 无痛且稳定的THA通常CD4、CD20和Hsp-60蛋白以及干扰素-γ(IFN-γ)的表达水平非常低。关键词:全髋关节置换术,全膝关节置换术,无菌性松动,人工关节感染,组织分析,膜,CD受体,Hsp-60蛋白,IFN-γ