RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Identification of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)-related pathogens is crucial to decide what is the correct surgical strategies and the most secure timing to re-implant in case of two-stage revision. The purpose of the present study is to review the literature to identify the features of each exams which are used to identify the pathogens associated with PJI, to evaluate which are the most sensitive and specific and to set up an algorithm to decide when, in the field of two-stage revision, it's the ideal timing to re-implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We did a systematic review of the literature to look for peer-reviewed papers of any evidence level focusing on: (1) Microbiological and molecular exams for identification of PJI-related pathogens. (2) Nuclear imaging methods, which can help in the identification of a PJI. Special attention was focused to analyse which is the sensitivity and specificity of these exams. RESULTS: Overall, 64 manuscripts met the criteria of the systematic search at point 1 and 7 manuscripts at point 2. Among microbiological and molecular exams, the average of sensitivity and specificity were respectively 65.6% and 94.4% for cultural exams, 74.1% and 95.2% for molecular diagnosis and 86.9% and 96% for MicroDTTect. Among nuclear imaging methods, the average of sensitivity and specificity were respectively 94% and 69 % for three-phase bone scintigraphy and 100% and 62.5% for [18F] Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: In two-stage revision after PJI, taking into account the sensitivity and specificity values, just a few microbiological and molecular exams and nuclear imaging methods should be considered in the decision process to re-implant the components.