Feng Richard, Mitchell Kacie, Ramachandran Shyam S, Broekman Melle, Johnson Anthony, Ring David, Ramtin Sina
Texas A&M Health Science Center, School of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA.
Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2025;13(5):258-265. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2024.80401.3675.
There is no consensus reference standard for diagnosing prosthetic shoulder joint infection (PJI). There may be inadequate distinction between colonization and infection. It is not clear that culture of a common shoulder commensal organism can account for unexpected pain or stiffness after shoulder arthroplasty. In this survey-based experiment, we asked: 1) What patient and surgeon variables are associated with diagnosis of shoulder PJI? And 2) What is the surgeon interobserver agreement for diagnosis of shoulder PJI?
One hundred seven members of the Science of Variation Group reviewed ten hypothetical patient scenarios with five randomized variables: examination findings, serum markers, synovial fluid markers, histological assessment, and organism cultured from deep tissue specimens. Participants diagnosed the presence or absence of shoulder PJI. Mixed multilevel logistic regression sought variables associated with PJI diagnosis. Interobserver agreement was measured with Fleiss kappa.
Surgeon diagnosis of shoulder PJI was independently associated with deep tissue culture growth of C. acnes (OR=235 [95% CI 19 to 2933]; P < 0.01), S. epidermidis (OR=147 [95% CI 8.4 to 2564]; P < 0.01), and S. aureus (OR=110 [95% CI 6.9 to 1755]; P < 0.01) much more so than presence of a sinus tract on examination (OR=43 [95% CI 3.7 to 505]; P < 0.01), inflammatory histology (OR=15 [95% CI 4.0 to 58]; P < 0.01), inflammatory synovial fluid markers (OR=13 [95% CI 3.9 to 45]; P < 0.01), and serum inflammatory markers (OR=5.8 [95% CI 2.0 to 17]; P < 0.01). The reliability of surgeon diagnosis for shoulder PJI was poor (Fleiss kappa = 0.013 [95% CI -0.0039 to 0.031]).
The observation that surgeons may not adequately distinguish colonization and infection - considering any positive culture as an infection - combined with the low reliability of diagnosis observed, suggests possible overdiagnosis and overtreatment of shoulder PJI.
对于人工肩关节感染(PJI)的诊断,目前尚无共识性的参考标准。在定植与感染之间可能缺乏充分的区分。尚不清楚肩部常见共生菌的培养能否解释肩关节置换术后意外出现的疼痛或僵硬。在这项基于调查的实验中,我们提出了以下问题:1)哪些患者和外科医生变量与肩部PJI的诊断相关?2)外科医生在肩部PJI诊断上的观察者间一致性如何?
变异科学小组的107名成员对10个假设的患者病例进行了评估,这些病例有5个随机变量:检查结果、血清标志物、滑液标志物、组织学评估以及从深部组织标本中培养出的微生物。参与者诊断是否存在肩部PJI。采用混合多水平逻辑回归分析与PJI诊断相关的变量。用Fleiss卡方检验测量观察者间一致性。
外科医生对肩部PJI的诊断与痤疮丙酸杆菌(OR = 235 [95% CI 19至2933];P < 0.01)、表皮葡萄球菌(OR = 147 [95% CI 8.4至2564];P < 0.01)和金黄色葡萄球菌(OR = 110 [95% CI 6.9至1755];P < 0.01)的深部组织培养生长独立相关,其相关性远高于检查时存在窦道(OR = 43 [95% CI 3.7至505];P < 0.01)、炎症性组织学(OR = 15 [95% CI 4.0至58];P < 0.01)、炎症性滑液标志物(OR = 13 [95% CI 3.9至45];P < 0.01)和血清炎症标志物(OR = 5.8 [95% CI 2.0至17];P < 0.01)。外科医生对肩部PJI诊断的可靠性较差(Fleiss卡方 = 0.013 [95% CI -0.0039至0.031])。
外科医生可能无法充分区分定植与感染(将任何阳性培养都视为感染),再加上观察到的诊断可靠性较低,这表明肩部PJI可能存在过度诊断和过度治疗的情况。