• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[术中直接超声检查对人工关节周围感染的诊断效能]

[Intraoperative direct sonication for the diagnostic efficacy of periprosthetic joint infection].

作者信息

Tian H Y, Li Y C, Guo X B, Zhang X G, Cao L

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830054, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025 Jul 30;63(9):821-828. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20250127-00045.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20250127-00045
PMID:40734415
Abstract

To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of intraoperative direct sonication in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This is a retrospective case series study. The clinical data of 490 patients with PJI or aseptic prosthesis loosening after hip or knee arthroplasty admitted to the Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2018 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 209 male cases, 281 female cases, aged [(IQR)] 63 (19) years (range: 15 to 89 years). There were 328 cases of PJI (123 cases of traditional sonication, 205 cases of intraoperative direct sonication, and 204 cases had simultaneous intraoperative synovial fluid), and 162 patients of aseptic loosening (89 cases of traditional sonication, 73 cases of intraoperative direct sonication, and 96 cases had simultaneous intraoperative synovial fluid). The method of traditional sonication: the prosthesis components were placed in a sterile container, vortexed for 30 seconds, then placed in an ultrasound bath to sonication (frequency:(40±2) kHz, power density:(0.22±0.04) W/cm²) for 5 minutes, vortexed again for 30 seconds, and the resulting sonicate fluid was extracted for culture. The method of intraoperative direct sonication: during the operation, the surgical area, the prosthesis and the tissues around the prosthesis which were placed in a sterile container were respectively subjected to sonication for 5 minutes using a portable handheld ultrasonic cell disruptor device (frequency: 25 kHz, power density:(0.22±0.04) W/cm²), and the fluids before and after sonication were extracted for culture. The method of intraoperative synovial fluid: during the operation, the joint capsule was incised, and the synovial fluid was extracted under direct vision for culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, Youden index, the effect of preoperative antimicrobial agents on culture results, and culture duration for different culture methods. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted, and the diagnostic efficacy of these methods for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) was compared using the ² test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and other appropriate statistical methods. The sensitivity of intraoperative direct sonication was significantly higher than that of intraoperative synovial fluid culture (89.8%(184/205) .56.9%(116/204),=44.457,<0.01) and traditional sonication (89.8%(184/205) .66.7%(82/123),=121.588,<0.01). However, its specificity was lower compared to intraoperative synovial fluid (87.5%(64/73) . 99.0%(95/96), =9.491, =0.002). The culture duration for intraoperative direct sonication was shorter than for intraoperative synovial fluid ((IQR, 87.0 (41.8) hours 112.5 (78.5) hours, =-5.121, <0.01) and traditional sonication (87.0 (41.8) hours 119.0 (67.5) hours, =-7.119, <0.01). Gram-positive bacteria (predominantly Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis) were the most common isolates across all three culture methods. Furthermore, intraoperative direct sonication was more likely to detect polymicrobial infections compared to traditional sonication (38.6% 2.4%, ²=37.223, <0.01) and intraoperative synovial fluid (38.6% 0.9%, ²=55.527, <0.01). Compared with intraoperative synovial fluid and traditional sonication, intraoperative direct sonication has excellent sensitivity, the shortest appropriate culture duration for pathogenic bacteria, and it is more likely to diagnose PJI patients with polymicrobial infections, having better diagnostic efficacy in the diagnosis of PJI.

摘要

探讨术中直接超声处理在人工关节周围感染(PJI)中的诊断效能。这是一项回顾性病例系列研究。回顾性分析了2018年1月至2023年12月在新疆医科大学第一附属医院骨科住院的490例髋关节或膝关节置换术后发生PJI或无菌性假体松动患者的临床资料。男性209例,女性281例,年龄[(四分位间距)]63(19)岁(范围:15至89岁)。PJI患者328例(传统超声处理123例,术中直接超声处理205例,204例同时进行术中滑膜液培养),无菌性松动患者162例(传统超声处理89例,术中直接超声处理73例,96例同时进行术中滑膜液培养)。传统超声处理方法:将假体组件置于无菌容器中,涡旋30秒,然后放入超声浴中进行超声处理(频率:(40±2)kHz,功率密度:(0.22±0.04)W/cm²)5分钟,再次涡旋30秒,提取所得超声处理液进行培养。术中直接超声处理方法:手术过程中,使用便携式手持式超声细胞破碎仪装置(频率:25kHz,功率密度:(0.22±0.04)W/cm²)分别对手术区域、置于无菌容器中的假体及其周围组织进行超声处理5分钟,提取超声处理前后的液体进行培养。术中滑膜液方法:手术过程中,切开关节囊,直视下提取滑膜液进行培养。比较不同培养方法的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值、约登指数、术前抗菌药物对培养结果的影响以及培养持续时间。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,使用卡方检验、Wilcoxon符号秩检验及其他适当的统计方法比较这些方法对人工关节感染(PJI)的诊断效能。术中直接超声处理的敏感性显著高于术中滑膜液培养(89.8%(184/205)对56.9%(116/204),χ²=44.457,P<0.01)和传统超声处理(89.8%(184/205)对66.7%(82/123),χ²=121.588,P<0.01)。然而,与术中滑膜液相比,其特异性较低(87.5%(64/73)对99.0%(95/96),χ²=9.491,P=0.002)。术中直接超声处理的培养持续时间短于术中滑膜液((四分位间距),87.0(41.8)小时对112.5(78.5)小时,Z=-5.121,P<0.01)和传统超声处理(87.0(41.8)小时对119.0(67.5)小时,Z=-7.119,P<0.01)。革兰氏阳性菌(主要是金黄色葡萄球菌和表皮葡萄球菌)是所有三种培养方法中最常见的分离菌株。此外,与传统超声处理(38.6%对2.4%,χ²=37.223,P<0.01)和术中滑膜液(38.6%对0.9%,χ²=55.527,P<0.01)相比,术中直接超声处理更有可能检测到混合微生物感染。与术中滑膜液和传统超声处理相比,术中直接超声处理具有优异的敏感性、致病菌合适的最短培养持续时间,并且更有可能诊断出混合微生物感染的PJI患者,在PJI的诊断中具有更好的诊断效能。

相似文献

1
[Intraoperative direct sonication for the diagnostic efficacy of periprosthetic joint infection].[术中直接超声检查对人工关节周围感染的诊断效能]
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025 Jul 30;63(9):821-828. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20250127-00045.
2
Is 18 F-fluoride PET/CT an Accurate Tool to Diagnose Loosening After Total Joint Arthroplasty?18F-氟化物PET/CT是诊断全关节置换术后假体松动的准确工具吗?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Mar 1;483(3):415-428. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003228. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
3
Intraoperative Direct Sonication Versus Conventional Sonication in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy and Time to Positivity of Fluid Culture.术中直接超声处理与传统超声处理在人工关节周围感染诊断中的应用:液体培养诊断准确性及阳性时间的比较
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2025 May 13;107(13):1439-1449. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.24.00744.
4
How Often Does Bacteremia Occur in Patients With Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Prospective, Observational Study.慢性人工关节感染患者菌血症的发生频率如何?一项前瞻性观察性研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Jan 21;483(7):1206-14. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003367.
5
Diagnostic Thresholds of Synovial Markers for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection: One Size Does Not Fit All.急性人工关节感染滑膜标志物的诊断阈值:并非一概而论。
J Arthroplasty. 2025 Jul;40(7S1):S296-S302. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.064. Epub 2025 Feb 27.
6
Microbiologic analysis of 140 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty due to periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic loosening: droplet digital PCR analysis.对140例因假体周围关节感染和无菌性松动而接受翻修全膝关节置换术的患者进行微生物学分析:液滴数字PCR分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Aug 7;20(1):740. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-06160-w.
7
Organism profiles and empirical treatments for periprosthetic joint infections.人工关节感染的病原体概况及经验性治疗
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Jul 25;20(1):698. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-06007-4.
8
What Are the Functional, Radiographic, and Survivorship Outcomes of a Modified Cup-cage Technique for Pelvic Discontinuity?改良杯笼技术治疗骨盆不连续性的功能、影像学和生存结果如何?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Dec 1;482(12):2149-2160. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003186. Epub 2024 Jul 9.
9
The Role of Sonication in Improving the Detection of Periprosthetic Joint Infections: a Prospective Analysis.超声处理在改善人工关节周围感染检测中的作用:一项前瞻性分析。
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2025 Aug;92(4):187-194. doi: 10.55095/achot2024/061.
10
High sensitivity and enhanced antibiotic stewardship of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel in acute, but not chronic, prosthetic joint infection of the knee.BioFire膝关节联合感染检测板在急性而非慢性人工膝关节感染中具有高灵敏度并能加强抗生素管理。
Microbiol Spectr. 2025 Jun 18:e0028625. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00286-25.