Predicting periprosthetic joint infection: external validation of preoperative prediction models.

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2024-10-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-9-231-2024
Seung-Jae Yoon, Paul C Jutte, Alex Soriano, Ricardo Sousa, Wierd P Zijlstra, Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker
{"title":"Predicting periprosthetic joint infection: external validation of preoperative prediction models.","authors":"Seung-Jae Yoon, Paul C Jutte, Alex Soriano, Ricardo Sousa, Wierd P Zijlstra, Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker","doi":"10.5194/jbji-9-231-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: Prediction models for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are gaining interest due to their potential to improve clinical decision-making. However, their external validity across various settings remains uncertain. This study aimed to externally validate promising preoperative PJI prediction models in a recent multinational European cohort. <b>Methods</b>: Three preoperative PJI prediction models - by Tan et al. (2018), Del Toro et al. (2019), and Bülow et al. (2022) - that have previously demonstrated high levels of accuracy were selected for validation. A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at centers in the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain between January 2020 and December 2021 was conducted. Patient characteristics were compared between our cohort and those used to develop the models. Performance was assessed through discrimination and calibration. <b>Results</b>: The study included 2684 patients, 60 of whom developed a PJI (2.2 %). Our cohort differed from the models' original cohorts with respect to demographic variables, procedural variables, and comorbidity prevalence. The overall accuracies of the models, measured with the <math><mi>c</mi></math>  statistic, were 0.72, 0.69, and 0.72 for the Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow models, respectively. Calibration was reasonable, but the PJI risk estimates were most accurate for predicted infection risks below 3 %-4 %. The Tan model overestimated PJI risk above 4 %, whereas the Del Toro model underestimated PJI risk above 3 %. <b>Conclusions</b>: The Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow PJI prediction models were externally validated in this multinational cohort, demonstrating potential for clinical application in identifying high-risk patients and enhancing preoperative counseling and prevention strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"9 5","pages":"231-239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-9-231-2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Prediction models for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are gaining interest due to their potential to improve clinical decision-making. However, their external validity across various settings remains uncertain. This study aimed to externally validate promising preoperative PJI prediction models in a recent multinational European cohort. Methods: Three preoperative PJI prediction models - by Tan et al. (2018), Del Toro et al. (2019), and Bülow et al. (2022) - that have previously demonstrated high levels of accuracy were selected for validation. A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at centers in the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain between January 2020 and December 2021 was conducted. Patient characteristics were compared between our cohort and those used to develop the models. Performance was assessed through discrimination and calibration. Results: The study included 2684 patients, 60 of whom developed a PJI (2.2 %). Our cohort differed from the models' original cohorts with respect to demographic variables, procedural variables, and comorbidity prevalence. The overall accuracies of the models, measured with the c  statistic, were 0.72, 0.69, and 0.72 for the Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow models, respectively. Calibration was reasonable, but the PJI risk estimates were most accurate for predicted infection risks below 3 %-4 %. The Tan model overestimated PJI risk above 4 %, whereas the Del Toro model underestimated PJI risk above 3 %. Conclusions: The Tan, Del Toro, and Bülow PJI prediction models were externally validated in this multinational cohort, demonstrating potential for clinical application in identifying high-risk patients and enhancing preoperative counseling and prevention strategies.

假体周围关节感染的预测:术前预测模型的外部验证。
导言:假体周围关节感染(PJI)的预测模型因其改善临床决策的潜力而越来越受到关注。然而,这些模型在不同环境下的外部有效性仍不确定。本研究的目的是在最近的多国欧洲队列中对有前景的术前 PJI 预测模型进行外部验证。方法:选择了三个术前 PJI 预测模型--Tan 等人(2018 年)、Del Toro 等人(2019 年)和 Bülow 等人(2022 年)--进行验证,这些模型之前已证明具有很高的准确性。我们对2020年1月至2021年12月期间在荷兰、葡萄牙和西班牙的中心接受全髋关节置换术(THA)和全膝关节置换术(TKA)的患者进行了回顾性观察分析。对我们的队列和用于开发模型的队列中的患者特征进行了比较。通过判别和校准评估了模型的性能。研究结果研究共纳入 2684 名患者,其中 60 人(2.2%)发生了 PJI。在人口统计学变量、手术变量和合并症发生率方面,我们的队列与模型的原始队列有所不同。用 c 统计量衡量,Tan、Del Toro 和 Bülow 模型的总体准确度分别为 0.72、0.69 和 0.72。校准结果是合理的,但 PJI 风险估计值在预测感染风险低于 3%-4% 时最为准确。Tan 模型高估了高于 4% 的 PJI 风险,而 Del Toro 模型低估了高于 3% 的 PJI 风险。结论:Tan、Del Toro 和 Bülow PJI 预测模型在这一跨国队列中得到了外部验证,显示了在临床应用中识别高风险患者、加强术前咨询和预防策略的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信