超声在骨折相关感染中的应用。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Christina Liu, Austin T Gregg, Stephen C Moye, Alina Fischer, Michael Akodu, Paul Appleton, Edward K Rodriguez, John Wixted
{"title":"超声在骨折相关感染中的应用。","authors":"Christina Liu, Austin T Gregg, Stephen C Moye, Alina Fischer, Michael Akodu, Paul Appleton, Edward K Rodriguez, John Wixted","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000003006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the utility of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture in the setting of fracture-related infections (FRIs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>One Level 1 Trauma Center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Patients with prior fracture fixation that required a reoperation for suspected infection, nonunion, or hardware failure with available sonication data between 2018 and 2023 were included.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>The primary outcome was positivity of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture. FRI was diagnosed based on clinical FRI diagnosis by the treating team in collaboration with infectious disease specialists. Secondary aims were to identify specificity and sensitivity of sonication and tissue culture and patient-specific factors associated with positive sonication in the setting of negative tissue culture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 79 patients identified, 67 met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 57 years (IQR: 43-72), and 50% were female. Most fractures were in the lower extremity (85%), and 73% were treated with plate fixation. Eighteen patients had positive tissue cultures, of which 15 were positive on sonication. Forty-nine patients had negative tissue cultures. Twenty-seven patients (40%) had positive sonication. Thirty cases were classified as FRI. Patients with positive sonication with negative tissue cultures were more likely male (66.6% vs. 32.4%, p=0.048), older (65.5 vs. 55.7 years, p=0.045), and had higher reoperation rates for suspected infection (50% vs. 13.5%, p=0.0093) compared to negative sonication. Sonication demonstrated a higher sensitivity (80% vs. 56%) and lower specificity (92% vs. 97%) than tissue culture for FRI detection. The total sonication cost was $229 per patient compared to $122 for standard tissue cultures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sonication demonstrated higher sensitivity for FRI detection compared to traditional tissue culture. Given its minimal additional cost and higher sensitivity, sonication is recommended as an adjunct diagnostic tool in reoperations for suspected orthopedic infections, hardware failure, and nonunion of unclear etiology.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utility of Sonication for Fracture-Related Infection.\",\"authors\":\"Christina Liu, Austin T Gregg, Stephen C Moye, Alina Fischer, Michael Akodu, Paul Appleton, Edward K Rodriguez, John Wixted\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BOT.0000000000003006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the utility of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture in the setting of fracture-related infections (FRIs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>One Level 1 Trauma Center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Patients with prior fracture fixation that required a reoperation for suspected infection, nonunion, or hardware failure with available sonication data between 2018 and 2023 were included.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>The primary outcome was positivity of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture. FRI was diagnosed based on clinical FRI diagnosis by the treating team in collaboration with infectious disease specialists. Secondary aims were to identify specificity and sensitivity of sonication and tissue culture and patient-specific factors associated with positive sonication in the setting of negative tissue culture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 79 patients identified, 67 met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 57 years (IQR: 43-72), and 50% were female. Most fractures were in the lower extremity (85%), and 73% were treated with plate fixation. Eighteen patients had positive tissue cultures, of which 15 were positive on sonication. Forty-nine patients had negative tissue cultures. Twenty-seven patients (40%) had positive sonication. Thirty cases were classified as FRI. Patients with positive sonication with negative tissue cultures were more likely male (66.6% vs. 32.4%, p=0.048), older (65.5 vs. 55.7 years, p=0.045), and had higher reoperation rates for suspected infection (50% vs. 13.5%, p=0.0093) compared to negative sonication. Sonication demonstrated a higher sensitivity (80% vs. 56%) and lower specificity (92% vs. 97%) than tissue culture for FRI detection. The total sonication cost was $229 per patient compared to $122 for standard tissue cultures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sonication demonstrated higher sensitivity for FRI detection compared to traditional tissue culture. Given its minimal additional cost and higher sensitivity, sonication is recommended as an adjunct diagnostic tool in reoperations for suspected orthopedic infections, hardware failure, and nonunion of unclear etiology.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Level IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000003006\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000003006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定超声与传统组织培养在骨折相关感染(FRIs)治疗中的应用。方法:设计:回顾性队列。环境:一间一级创伤中心。患者选择标准:纳入2018年至2023年期间有超声数据的既往骨折固定,因疑似感染、骨不连或硬件故障需要再次手术的患者。结果测量和比较:主要结果是超声与传统组织培养的阳性。治疗小组与传染病专家合作,根据临床FRI诊断诊断FRI。次要目的是确定超声和组织培养的特异性和敏感性,以及在阴性组织培养的情况下与阳性超声相关的患者特异性因素。结果:79例患者中,67例符合纳入标准。平均年龄57岁(IQR: 43-72),女性占50%。大多数骨折发生在下肢(85%),73%采用钢板固定治疗。18例患者组织培养阳性,其中超声检查阳性15例。49例患者组织培养阴性。超声检查阳性27例(40%)。30例为FRI,超声阳性组织培养阴性患者以男性(66.6%比32.4%,p=0.048)、年龄(65.5比55.7岁,p=0.045)、疑似感染再手术率(50%比13.5%,p=0.0093)高于超声阴性患者。超声检测FRI的灵敏度更高(80%对56%),特异性较低(92%对97%)。超声检查的总费用为每位患者229美元,而标准组织培养的费用为122美元。结论:超声检测FRI的灵敏度高于传统组织培养。考虑到超声的最低额外费用和更高的灵敏度,超声被推荐作为再手术的辅助诊断工具,用于疑似骨科感染、硬件故障和病因不明的骨不连。证据等级:诊断性四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Utility of Sonication for Fracture-Related Infection.

Objectives: To determine the utility of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture in the setting of fracture-related infections (FRIs).

Methods: Design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: One Level 1 Trauma Center.

Patient selection criteria: Patients with prior fracture fixation that required a reoperation for suspected infection, nonunion, or hardware failure with available sonication data between 2018 and 2023 were included.

Outcome measures and comparisons: The primary outcome was positivity of sonication compared to traditional tissue culture. FRI was diagnosed based on clinical FRI diagnosis by the treating team in collaboration with infectious disease specialists. Secondary aims were to identify specificity and sensitivity of sonication and tissue culture and patient-specific factors associated with positive sonication in the setting of negative tissue culture.

Results: Of 79 patients identified, 67 met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 57 years (IQR: 43-72), and 50% were female. Most fractures were in the lower extremity (85%), and 73% were treated with plate fixation. Eighteen patients had positive tissue cultures, of which 15 were positive on sonication. Forty-nine patients had negative tissue cultures. Twenty-seven patients (40%) had positive sonication. Thirty cases were classified as FRI. Patients with positive sonication with negative tissue cultures were more likely male (66.6% vs. 32.4%, p=0.048), older (65.5 vs. 55.7 years, p=0.045), and had higher reoperation rates for suspected infection (50% vs. 13.5%, p=0.0093) compared to negative sonication. Sonication demonstrated a higher sensitivity (80% vs. 56%) and lower specificity (92% vs. 97%) than tissue culture for FRI detection. The total sonication cost was $229 per patient compared to $122 for standard tissue cultures.

Conclusion: Sonication demonstrated higher sensitivity for FRI detection compared to traditional tissue culture. Given its minimal additional cost and higher sensitivity, sonication is recommended as an adjunct diagnostic tool in reoperations for suspected orthopedic infections, hardware failure, and nonunion of unclear etiology.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level IV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信