Hip aspiration culture: analysing data from a single operator series investigating periprosthetic joint infection.

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2021-05-10 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-6-165-2021
Connor J Barker, Alan Marriot, Munir Khan, Tamsin Oswald, Samuel J Tingle, Paul F Partington, Ian Carluke, Mike R Reed
{"title":"Hip aspiration culture: analysing data from a single operator series investigating periprosthetic joint infection.","authors":"Connor J Barker,&nbsp;Alan Marriot,&nbsp;Munir Khan,&nbsp;Tamsin Oswald,&nbsp;Samuel J Tingle,&nbsp;Paul F Partington,&nbsp;Ian Carluke,&nbsp;Mike R Reed","doi":"10.5194/jbji-6-165-2021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: We undertook this study to know the sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities of hip aspiration when diagnosing periprosthetic hip infections. We also examined \"dry tap\" (injection with saline and aspiration) results and aspiration volumes. <b>Methods</b>: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients aspirated for suspected periprosthetic joint infection between July 2012 and October 2016. All aspirations were carried out by one trained surgical care practitioner (SCP). All aspirations followed an aseptic technique and fluoroscopic guidance. Aspiration was compared to tissue biopsy taken at revision. Aspiration volumes were analysed for comparison. <b>Results</b>: Between January 2012 and September 2016, 461 hip aspirations were performed by our SCP. Of these 125 progressed to revision. We calculated sensitivity 59 % (confidence interval (CI) 35 %-82 %) and specificity 94 % (CI 89 %-98 %). Pre-test probability for our cohort was 0.14. Positive post-test probability was 0.59 and negative post-test probability 0.06. Aspiration volume for infected ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>17</mn></mrow> </math> ) and non-infected ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>108</mn></mrow> </math> ) joints was compared and showed no significant difference. Dry taps were experienced five times; in each instance the dry tap agreed with the biopsy result. <b>Conclusions</b>: Our data show that hip aspiration culture is a highly specific investigation for diagnosing infection but that it is not sensitive. Aspiration volume showed no significant difference between infected and non-infected groups. Each time a joint was infiltrated with saline to achieve a result, the result matched tissue sampling.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"6 6","pages":"165-170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137858/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-6-165-2021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: We undertook this study to know the sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities of hip aspiration when diagnosing periprosthetic hip infections. We also examined "dry tap" (injection with saline and aspiration) results and aspiration volumes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients aspirated for suspected periprosthetic joint infection between July 2012 and October 2016. All aspirations were carried out by one trained surgical care practitioner (SCP). All aspirations followed an aseptic technique and fluoroscopic guidance. Aspiration was compared to tissue biopsy taken at revision. Aspiration volumes were analysed for comparison. Results: Between January 2012 and September 2016, 461 hip aspirations were performed by our SCP. Of these 125 progressed to revision. We calculated sensitivity 59 % (confidence interval (CI) 35 %-82 %) and specificity 94 % (CI 89 %-98 %). Pre-test probability for our cohort was 0.14. Positive post-test probability was 0.59 and negative post-test probability 0.06. Aspiration volume for infected ( n = 17 ) and non-infected ( n = 108 ) joints was compared and showed no significant difference. Dry taps were experienced five times; in each instance the dry tap agreed with the biopsy result. Conclusions: Our data show that hip aspiration culture is a highly specific investigation for diagnosing infection but that it is not sensitive. Aspiration volume showed no significant difference between infected and non-infected groups. Each time a joint was infiltrated with saline to achieve a result, the result matched tissue sampling.

髋关节抽吸培养:分析单个操作员系列调查假体周围关节感染的数据。
前言:我们进行这项研究是为了了解髋关节抽吸在诊断假体周围髋关节感染时的敏感性、特异性和术后概率。我们还检查了“干龙头”(注射生理盐水并抽吸)结果和抽吸量。方法:对2012年7月至2016年10月期间因疑似假体周围关节感染而抽吸的患者进行回顾性队列研究。所有手术均由一名训练有素的外科护理医生(SCP)进行。所有穿刺均采用无菌技术和透视指导。将抽吸与翻修时的组织活检进行比较。分析吸进量进行比较。结果:2012年1月至2016年9月,我院SCP共实施髋关节入路手术461例。其中125个进入修订阶段。我们计算出灵敏度59 %(置信区间(CI) 35 %-82 %)和特异性94 % (CI 89 %-98 %)。我们队列的测试前概率为0.14。后验阳性概率为0.59,后验阴性概率为0.06。感染关节(n = 17)与未感染关节(n = 108)的吸痰量比较,差异无统计学意义。干水龙头经历了五次;在每个例子中,干龙头都与活检结果一致。结论:我们的数据表明,髋关节吸痰培养是诊断感染的一种高度特异性的调查,但它并不敏感。感染组与非感染组吸入量差异无统计学意义。每次用生理盐水浸润关节以获得结果时,结果与组织采样相匹配。
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