Suppr超能文献

超声检查在骨折相关感染(FRI)诊断中的应用——230 例取出植入物的回顾性研究。

Sonication in the diagnosis of fracture-related infections (FRI)-a retrospective study on 230 retrieved implants.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, BG University Clinic Bergmannsheil Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.

Department of Microbiology, BG University Clinic Bergmannsheil Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 May 13;16(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02460-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In fracture-related infections (FRI), both the diagnosis of the infection and the identification of the causative pathogen are crucial to optimize treatment outcomes. Sonication has been successfully used for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI); however, its role in FRI remains unknown. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) of sonicate fluid culture (SFC). The primary objective was to compare SFC with peri-implant tissue culture (PTC) overall and among subgroups using the consensus definition by Metsemakers et al. The secondary objective was to determine the yield of SFC in possible fracture-related infections (PFRI).

METHODS

From March 2017 to May 2019, 230 cases of retrieved implants were retrospectively reviewed. To perform sonication, explants were placed in sterile polypropylene jars intraoperatively. After treatment in an ultrasonic bath (Bandelin, Berlin, Germany), sonicate fluid was incubated into blood culture bottles, and conventional culturing was eventually performed. Sensitivity and specificity were determined using two-by-two contingency tables. McNemar's test was used to compare proportions among paired samples while Fisher's exact test was used for comparison between categorical variables.

RESULTS

Of the 230 cases, 107 were identified as FRI, whereas 123 were aseptic revision cases (ARC). Of the latter, 105 were labeled as PFRI. Sensitivity of SFC was higher in comparison with PTC, although this did not reach statistical significance (90.7% vs. 84.1%; p = .065). The specificity of SFC was significantly lower than that of PTC (73.2% vs. 88.6%; p = .003). In PFRI, SFC yielded significantly more positive results than PTC (33/105 vs. 14/105; p = .003). Overall, 142 pathogens were identified by SFC, whereas 131 pathogens were found by PTC.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that sonication of fracture fixation devices may be a useful adjunct in FRI, especially in "low-grade" infections lacking confirmatory clinical criteria. Standardized diagnostic protocols are warranted in order to further optimize the diagnostic accuracy.

摘要

背景

在骨折相关感染(FRI)中,感染的诊断和病原体的鉴定对于优化治疗结果至关重要。超声处理已成功用于人工关节假体周围感染(PJI);然而,其在 FRI 中的作用尚不清楚。我们的目的是确定超声处理液培养(SFC)的诊断准确性(敏感性、特异性)。主要目的是比较 SFC 与种植体周围组织培养(PTC)的总体结果,并使用 Metsemakers 等人的共识定义进行亚组分析。次要目的是确定 SFC 在可能的骨折相关感染(PFRI)中的检出率。

方法

从 2017 年 3 月至 2019 年 5 月,回顾性分析了 230 例取出的植入物病例。为了进行超声处理,术中将标本放入无菌聚丙烯罐中。超声处理后,将超声液置于血培养瓶中孵育,最终进行常规培养。使用四格表计算敏感性和特异性。McNemar 检验用于比较配对样本之间的比例,Fisher 确切检验用于比较分类变量之间的差异。

结果

在 230 例病例中,107 例被确定为 FRI,而 123 例为无菌翻修病例(ARC)。其中 105 例被标记为 PFRI。SFC 的敏感性高于 PTC,但差异无统计学意义(90.7% vs. 84.1%;p =.065)。SFC 的特异性明显低于 PTC(73.2% vs. 88.6%;p =.003)。在 PFRI 中,SFC 比 PTC 更能检测到阳性结果(33/105 vs. 14/105;p =.003)。总体而言,SFC 鉴定出 142 种病原体,而 PTC 鉴定出 131 种病原体。

结论

我们发现,骨折固定装置的超声处理可能是 FRI 的一种有用辅助手段,特别是在缺乏明确临床标准的“低级别”感染中。需要制定标准化的诊断方案,以进一步提高诊断准确性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b3f/8117644/9a6991a530e1/13018_2021_2460_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验