Are Accuracy Studies for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis Inherently Flawed? And What to Do with Schrödinger's Hips? A Prospective Analysis of the Alpha Defensin Lateral-Flow Test in Chronic Painful Hip Arthroplasties.

Purpose: The most recent diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) include the use of the alpha-defensin (AD) lateral-flow (LF) test, but hip and knee arthroplasties were usually combined in previous studies. This prospective study was designed to examine the accuracy of the AD-LF test for diagnosis of PJI in chronic painful total hip arthroplasties (THA). Materials and Methods: Patients with chronic painful hip arthroplasties were prospectively enrolled between March 2018 and May 2020. Exclusion criteria included acute PJI or an insufficient amount of synovial fluid. The modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria were primarily used for PJI diagnosis. Fifty-seven patients were included in the analysis group. Revision surgery was not performed in 38 patients, for different reasons (clinical group); these patients remain "Schrödinger's hips": in such cases PJI cannot be excluded nor confirmed until you "open the box". Results: The result of the AD-LF test was positive in nine patients and negative in 48 patients. Six patients were diagnosed with PJI. AD-LF sensitivity (MSIS criteria) was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36-100%) and specificity was 92% (95% CI 81-98%). The positive and negative predictive value were 56% and 98%, respectively. Conclusion: The AD test is useful in addition to the existing arsenal of diagnostic tools, and can be helpful in the decision-making process. Not all patients with chronical painful THA will undergo revision surgery. Consequently, in order to determine the reliable diagnostic accuracy of this test, future PJI diagnostic studies should include a second arm of "Schrödinger's hips".

Does the Alpha Defensin ELISA Test Perform Better Than the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test for PJI Diagnosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty is a serious complication that causes severe morbidity and adds a major financial burden to the healthcare system. Although there is plenty of research on the alpha-defensin (AD) test, a meta-analysis consisting of only prospective studies investigating AD's diagnostic efficacy has not been performed. Additionally, some important subgroups such as THA and TKA have not been separately analyzed, particularly regarding two commonly used versions of the AD test, the laboratory-based (ELISA) and lateral-flow (LF). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the AD ELISA test perform better in the detection of PJI than the AD LF test, in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity, when including prospective studies only? (2) Are there differences in sensitivity or specificity when using AD ELISA and AD LF tests for PJI diagnosis of THA or TKA PJI separately? METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included prospective studies describing the use of either AD test in the workup of pain after total joint arthroplasty (primary or revision, but not after resection arthroplasty). Fifteen studies (AD ELISA: 4; AD LF: 11) were included, with 1592 procedures. Subgroup data on THA and TKA could be retrieved for 1163 procedures (ELISA THA: 123; LF THA: 257; ELISA TKA: 228; LF TKA: 555). Studies not describing THA or TKA, those not using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria as the standard for determining the presence or absence of PJI, those not clearly reporting data for the AD test for the total cohort, and those describing data published in another study were excluded. Studies were not excluded based on follow-up duration; the MSIS criteria could be used within a few weeks, when test results were available. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. Study quality was generally good. The most frequent sources of bias were related to patient selection (such as unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria) and flow and timing (uncertainty in place and time of aspiration, for example). Heterogeneity was moderate to high; a bivariate random-effects model therefore was used. To answer both research questions, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for AD ELISA and LF test groups and THA and TKA subgroups, and were compared using z-test statistics and meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: No differences were found between the AD ELISA and the AD LF for PJI diagnosis in the pooled cohorts (THA and TKA combined), in terms of sensitivity (90% versus 86%; p = 0.43) and specificity (97% versus 96%; p = 0.39). Differences in sensitivity for PJI diagnosis were found between the THA and TKA groups for the AD ELISA test (70% versus 94%; p = 0.008); pooled AD LF test sensitivity did not differ between THA and TKA (80% versus 87%; p = 0.20). No differences in specificity were found in either subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Both the AD ELISA and AD LF test can be used in clinical practice because both have high sensitivity and very high specificity for PJI diagnosis. The lower sensitivity found for diagnosis of PJI in THA for the AD ELISA test must be carefully interpreted because the pooled data were heterogenous and only two studies for this group were included. Future research should analyze TKAs and THAs separately to confirm or disprove this finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II diagnostic study.

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study.

Background: Little is known about functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Methods: a cohort of 30 subjects treated with one-stage revision between 2011 and 2015 was identified, and questionnaires on functional outcome and QoL were distributed. Results: 28 subjects were successfully treated (93%). Most subjects were referred from other hospitals. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was found in 50% of the cases, and 40% of all cultured bacteria were multidrug-resistant. 25% had subsequent revision surgery, unrelated to PJI. Functional outcome was good and QoL scores were high, comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general. Conclusion: Although the cohort was small and statistical analysis was not performed, this study showed that excellent results can be obtained with one-stage revision for hip PJI. Functional outcome and QoL was comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general.

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for diagnosing periprosthetic hip infection: the importance of diagnostic criteria.

BACKGROUND: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a novel method of assessing suspected periprosthetic hip infection. However, a heterogeneity of sensitivity and specificity using different diagnostic criteria across clinical studies has been published. The objective of this study is to evaluate the various diagnostic criteria using FDG-PET in diagnosing periprosthetic hip infection. METHODS: FDG-PET scans of patients suffering from painful hip prostheses between 2008 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The PET images were considered positive for infection using five criteria: any increased uptake at the (1) bone-prosthesis-interface, (2) periprosthetic soft tissue (PST), or (3) both, (4) increased uptake in the bone-prosthesis-interface compared to the PST, and (5) increased uptake along the femoral bone-prosthesis-interface. The final diagnosis of infection was based on the pre-operative and intra-operative findings with clinical follow-up > 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 33 hip prostheses were evaluated in this study, of which 16 were determined to be infected and 17 uninfected. Any periprosthetic FDG uptake was found in all symptomatic prostheses (sensitivity 100%; specificity 0%). When increased uptake in the bone-prosthesis-interface (sensitivity 100%; specificity 65%) or PST (sensitivity 94%; specificity 59%) was considered infected, specificity increased. A higher intensity of uptake at the bone-prosthesis-interface than PST demonstrated only moderate specificity (sensitivity 44%; specificity 71%). The most specific criterion for infection was an increased FDG uptake along the femoral bone-prosthesis-interface (sensitivity 81%; specificity 94%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that the accuracy of FDG-PET is highly dependent of the diagnostic criteria used for periprosthetic hip infection. Only an acceptable diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 81%; specificity 94%) was found when increased FDG uptake along the femoral bone-prosthesis-interface was considered positive for infection.

What is the Accuracy of Nuclear Imaging in the Assessment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection? A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the assessment of possible periprosthetic knee infection, various imaging modalities are used without consensus regarding the most accurate technique. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To perform a meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of various applied imaging modalities in the assessment of periprosthetic knee infection. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase® in accordance with the PRISMA and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) recommendations to identify clinical studies in which periprosthetic knee infection was investigated with different imaging modalities. The sensitivity and specificity of each imaging technique were determined and compared with the results of microbiologic and histologic analyses, intraoperative findings, and clinical followup of more than 6 months. A total of 23 studies, published between 1990 and 2015, were included for meta-analysis, representing 1027 diagnostic images of symptomatic knee prostheses. Quality of the included studies showed low concerns regarding external validity, whereas internal validity indicated more concerns regarding the risk of bias. The most important concerns were found in the lack of uniform criteria for the diagnosis of a periprosthetic infection and the flow and timing of the included studies. Differences among techniques were tested at a probability less than 0.05 level. Where there was slight overlap of confidence intervals for two means, it is possible for the point estimates to be statistically different from one another at a probability less than 0.05. The z-test was used to statistically analyze differences in these situations. RESULTS: Bone scintigraphy was less specific than all other modalities tested (56%; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64; p < 0.001), and leukocyte scintigraphy (77%; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85) was less specific than antigranulocyte scintigraphy (95%; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; p < 0.001) or combined leukocyte and bone marrow scintigraphy (93%; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; p < 0.001). Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) (84%; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90) was more specific than bone scintigraphy (56%; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64; p < 0.001), and less specific than antigranulocyte scintigraphy (95%; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; p = 0.02) and combined leukocyte and bone marrow scintigraphy (93%; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; p < 0.001). Leukocyte scintigraphy (88%; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; p = 0.01) and antigranulocyte scintigraphy (90%; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96; p = 0.02) were more sensitive than FGD-PET (70%; 95% CI, 0.56-0.81). However, because of broad overlapping of confidence intervals, no differences in sensitivity were observed among the other modalities, including combined bone scintigraphy (93%; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) or combined leukocyte and bone marrow scintigraphy (80%; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91; p > 0.05 for all paired comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, antigranulocyte scintigraphy and combined leukocyte and bone marrow scintigraphy appear to be highly specific imaging modalities in confirming periprosthetic knee infection. Bone scintigraphy was a highly sensitive imaging technique but lacks the specificity needed to differentiate among various conditions that cause painful knee prostheses. FDG-PET may not be the preferred imaging modality because it is more expensive and not more effective in confirming periprosthetic knee infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability in the Radiologic Assessment of Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing intraobserver and interobserver reliability of 3 different radiologic fusion classifications following uninstrumented single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The objective of the study was to compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of 3 different radiologic spinal fusion scoring systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Knowledge regarding radiologic spinal fusion is crucial when studying patients that were treated with lumbar interbody fusion. The scoring system should be reliable and reproducible. Various radiologic classification systems coexist, but the reliability of these systems has thus far not been compared in a single consecutive group of patients. The aim of the present study was the identification of the most valid scoring system in the assessment of interbody fusion. METHODS: We studied a retrospective consecutive cohort of 50 patients who underwent an anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure by a single surgeon using a stand-alone cage performed between 1993 and 2002. Plain anterior-posterior, lateral radiographs, and flexion-extension radiographs were made during follow-up visits and were used for analysis. The interbody fusion was scored on these radiographic images using the 3 classification systems (Brantigan, Burkus, and the Radiographic Score) by 2 experienced musculoskeletal radiologists and 2 senior orthopedic spinal surgeons all of whom were blinded to clinical data and outcome. RESULTS: Of the 3 classifications included in the current study, the Burkus classification had a moderate interobserver agreement and a substantial to perfect intraobserver agreement. The other classifications (Bratingan and the Radiographic Score) showed only fair interobserver agreement and moderate to substantial agreement among all observers. No significant differences in reliability between orthopedic surgeons and radiologists were found for all 3 classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The Burkus classification system was classified as most reliable in this, but showed only moderate interobserver agreement. Therefore, the need for a more reliable classification system for the radiographic assessment of lumbar interbody fusion still exists to date.

Inter- And Intraobserver Reliability In The Assessment Of Glenoid Fracture Classifications.

Throughout literature a number of glenoid classification systems have been described but lack clear correlation with the fracture patterns found in clinical cases. This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and interobserver agreement for fracture classifications of the glenoid, using either plain radiographs, computed tomography (CT) scans. The study was retrospective, using images with a variety of fracture types. Six observers classified the fracture patterns. Classifications of Ideberg, OTAAO, Mayo and Euler/Ruedi were used. Agreement was determined using kappa coefficients. Currently used glenoid fracture classification systems have a fair to moderate intraobserver reliability. Combining plain radiographs and CT scans led to a better observer agreement. For interoberserver reliability, the system of Euler scored slightly better than other systems. Although Ideberg's classification is the most widely used system, this study does not support superiority of it. Based on this study there is need for a more reliable glenoid classification system.