Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NewYork Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Feb;27(2):211-216. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.08.008. Epub 2017 Oct 14.
Diagnosing infection after shoulder arthroplasty can be a challenge because of the high prevalence of low-virulence organisms, such as Propionibacterium acnes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of implant sonication fluid cultures in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection compared with standard culture techniques in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty.
Routine perioperative testing was performed in 53 patients who underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty. In addition to routine tissue and fluid culture, the retrieved shoulder implants underwent sonication with culture of the sonicate fluid. Diagnostic performance of implant sonication culture was determined on the basis of previously defined infection criteria and compared with standard intraoperative cultures.
Of the 53 revision cases that underwent implant sonication fluid culture, 25 (47%) were classified as infected. Intraoperative culture (tissue and fluid) sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 96%, 75%, 77%, 95%, and 85%, respectively. Using a cutoff of >20 colony-forming units per milliliter to exclude contaminants, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of implant sonicate culture were 56% (P < .001, compared with standard intraoperative cultures), 93% (P = .07), 88% (P = .4), 70% (P = .02), and 75% (P = .22), respectively. Without use of a sonication fluid culture cutoff value, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of implant sonicate culture were 96% (P = 1.0, compared with standard intraoperative cultures), 64% (P = .38), 71% (P = .53), 95% (P = .9), and 79% (P = .45).
Implant sonication fluid culture in revision shoulder arthroplasty showed no significant benefits over standard intraoperative cultures in diagnostic utility for periprosthetic joint infection.
由于低毒力微生物(如痤疮丙酸杆菌)的高流行率,诊断肩关节置换术后感染具有一定挑战性。本研究旨在评估与标准培养技术相比,在接受肩关节翻修术的患者中,使用植入物超声液培养诊断假体周围关节感染的效用。
对 53 例行肩关节翻修术的患者进行了常规围手术期检测。除了常规的组织和液体培养外,还对取出的肩关节植入物进行了超声处理,并对超声液进行了培养。基于先前定义的感染标准,确定植入物超声液培养的诊断性能,并与标准术中培养进行比较。
53 例接受植入物超声液培养的翻修病例中,25 例(47%)被归类为感染。术中培养(组织和液体)的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性分别为 96%、75%、77%、95%和 85%。使用>20 个菌落形成单位/毫升的截值来排除污染物,植入物超声培养的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV 和准确性分别为 56%(P<0.001,与标准术中培养相比)、93%(P=0.07)、88%(P=0.4)、70%(P=0.02)和 75%(P=0.22)。不使用超声液培养截值时,植入物超声培养的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV 和准确性分别为 96%(P=1.0,与标准术中培养相比)、64%(P=0.38)、71%(P=0.53)、95%(P=0.9)和 79%(P=0.45)。
在肩关节翻修术中,与标准术中培养相比,植入物超声液培养在假体周围关节感染的诊断实用性方面没有显著优势。