Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Federico II University, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Department of Infectious Diseases, D. Cotugno Hospital, AORN Dei Colli, Naples, Italy.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Mar;140(3):293-301. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03232-5. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
Two methods are currently available for the assay of α-defensin: the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the lateral flow test. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid α-defensin and to compare the accuracy of the laboratory-based test and the qualitative assessment for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection.
We searched (from inception to May 2018) MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies on α-defensin in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio were analyzed using the bivariate diagnostic random-effects model. The receiver-operating curve for each method was calculated.
We included 13 articles in our meta-analysis, including 1170 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties revision; 368 (31%) had a joint infection according to MSIS and MSIS-modified criteria. Considering the false-positive result rate of 8% and false-negative result rate of 3%, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.94) and 0.95 (0.92-0.96), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.94 (0.92-0.94). No statistical differences in terms of sensitivity and specificity were found between the laboratory-based and qualitative test. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the two alpha-defensin assessment methods were: laboratory-based test 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.98), respectively; qualitative test 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the α-defensin laboratory based was superior to that of the qualitative test (1126.085, 95% CI 352.172-3600.702 versus 100.9, 95% CI 30.1-338.41; p < 0.001). The AUC for immunoassay and qualitative tests was 0.97 (0.95-0.99) and 0.91 (0.88-0.99), respectively.
Detection of α-defensin is an accurate test for diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infections. The diagnostic accuracy of the two alpha-defensin assessment methods is comparable. The lateral flow assay is a valid, rapid, and more available diagnostic tool, particularly to rule out PJI.
目前有两种方法可用于检测α-防御素:酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)和侧向流动检测。我们旨在评估滑液α-防御素的诊断准确性,并比较基于实验室的检测和定性评估在诊断髋关节和膝关节假体感染中的准确性。
我们检索了(从创建到 2018 年 5 月)MEDLINE、Scopus、EMBASE、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 中关于α-防御素在诊断假体周围关节感染(PJI)中的应用的研究。使用双变量诊断随机效应模型分析敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性似然比(LR)以及诊断比值比。计算每种方法的受试者工作特征曲线。
我们的荟萃分析纳入了 13 项研究,共纳入 1170 例接受全髋关节和膝关节置换术翻修的患者;根据 MSIS 和 MSIS 改良标准,368 例(31%)存在关节感染。考虑到假阳性率为 8%,假阴性率为 3%,合并的敏感性和特异性分别为 0.90(95%CI 0.83-0.94)和 0.95(0.92-0.96)。曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.94(0.92-0.94)。基于实验室和定性检测的敏感性和特异性无统计学差异。两种α-防御素评估方法的合并敏感性和特异性分别为:基于实验室的检测 0.97(95%CI 0.93-0.99)和 0.96(95%CI 0.94-0.98);定性检测 0.83(95%CI 0.73-0.91)和 0.94(95%CI 0.89-0.97)。α-防御素基于实验室的检测的诊断比值比优于定性检测(1126.085,95%CI 352.172-3600.702 与 100.9,95%CI 30.1-338.41;p<0.001)。免疫测定和定性检测的 AUC 分别为 0.97(0.95-0.99)和 0.91(0.88-0.99)。
检测α-防御素是诊断髋关节和膝关节假体感染的一种准确的检测方法。两种α-防御素评估方法的诊断准确性相当。侧向流动检测是一种有效、快速且更易获得的诊断工具,尤其可用于排除 PJI。