根据应用定义,翻修髋关节和膝关节置换术中假体周围关节感染的发生率有显著差异

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Laura Elisa Streck, Christian Manuel Sterneder, Lyubomir Haralambiev, Marco Brenneis, Yu-Fen Chiu, Friedrich Boettner
{"title":"根据应用定义,翻修髋关节和膝关节置换术中假体周围关节感染的发生率有显著差异","authors":"Laura Elisa Streck,&nbsp;Christian Manuel Sterneder,&nbsp;Lyubomir Haralambiev,&nbsp;Marco Brenneis,&nbsp;Yu-Fen Chiu,&nbsp;Friedrich Boettner","doi":"10.1007/s00402-025-05994-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Differentiating periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) from aseptic failure is challenging in total joint arthroplasty. To date, there is no consensus about the most accurate criteria to diagnose PJI. The current study compares common diagnostic PJI criteria.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>256 total hip and knee arthroplasties that underwent revision surgery between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively classified as PJI or non PJI according to the following definitions: 2011 Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), 2013 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), 2018 updated MSIS-criteria (MSIS-18), 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infections (ICM), 2021 European Bone and Joint Infections Society (EBJIS), Pro-Implant Foundation, and the surgeons’ assessment at the time of surgery. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated with reference to (1) microbiological culture results, (2) MSIS-criteria, and (3) the surgeons’ diagnosis. Results were compared between hip- and knee arthroplasties using Fisher’s Exact- or Chi-square test, outcomes were compared between two criteria using Pearson correlation.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>PJI was diagnosed in 47.7% of cases applying MSIS-criteria, 49.2% for IDSA-criteria, 52.3% for MSIS-18 criteria, 55.5% for ICM-criteria, 62.1% for EBJIS-criteria, 67.2% for Pro-Implant-criteria, and 55.1% according to the surgeons’ judgment. Pro-Implant-criteria showed the lowest concordance with microbiological cultures and a rate of 35.5% culture negative infections. ICM- and MSIS-18-criteria showed best concordance with the surgeons’ diagnosis.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The current study showed that the diagnosis of PJI is highly dependent on the applied diagnostic criteria. EBJIS- and Pro-Implant-criteria classified more cases as PJI compared to other diagnostic criteria. Care should be taken to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially if low synovial white blood cell thresholds are applied as definite criteria to diagnose PJI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Significant differences in the rate of periprosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty depending on the applied definition\",\"authors\":\"Laura Elisa Streck,&nbsp;Christian Manuel Sterneder,&nbsp;Lyubomir Haralambiev,&nbsp;Marco Brenneis,&nbsp;Yu-Fen Chiu,&nbsp;Friedrich Boettner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00402-025-05994-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Differentiating periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) from aseptic failure is challenging in total joint arthroplasty. To date, there is no consensus about the most accurate criteria to diagnose PJI. The current study compares common diagnostic PJI criteria.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>256 total hip and knee arthroplasties that underwent revision surgery between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively classified as PJI or non PJI according to the following definitions: 2011 Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), 2013 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), 2018 updated MSIS-criteria (MSIS-18), 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infections (ICM), 2021 European Bone and Joint Infections Society (EBJIS), Pro-Implant Foundation, and the surgeons’ assessment at the time of surgery. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated with reference to (1) microbiological culture results, (2) MSIS-criteria, and (3) the surgeons’ diagnosis. Results were compared between hip- and knee arthroplasties using Fisher’s Exact- or Chi-square test, outcomes were compared between two criteria using Pearson correlation.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>PJI was diagnosed in 47.7% of cases applying MSIS-criteria, 49.2% for IDSA-criteria, 52.3% for MSIS-18 criteria, 55.5% for ICM-criteria, 62.1% for EBJIS-criteria, 67.2% for Pro-Implant-criteria, and 55.1% according to the surgeons’ judgment. Pro-Implant-criteria showed the lowest concordance with microbiological cultures and a rate of 35.5% culture negative infections. ICM- and MSIS-18-criteria showed best concordance with the surgeons’ diagnosis.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The current study showed that the diagnosis of PJI is highly dependent on the applied diagnostic criteria. EBJIS- and Pro-Implant-criteria classified more cases as PJI compared to other diagnostic criteria. Care should be taken to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially if low synovial white blood cell thresholds are applied as definite criteria to diagnose PJI.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-025-05994-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-025-05994-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在全关节置换术中,区分假体周围感染(PJI)和无菌性失败是一个挑战。迄今为止,对于诊断PJI的最准确标准尚未达成共识。目前的研究比较了常见的PJI诊断标准。方法回顾性分析2017 - 2022年间行翻修手术的256例全髋关节置换术患者,根据以下定义将其分类为PJI或非PJI:2011年肌肉骨骼感染学会(MSIS), 2013年美国传染病学会(IDSA), 2018年更新MSIS标准(MSIS-18), 2018年假体周围关节感染国际共识会议(ICM), 2021年欧洲骨和关节感染学会(EBJIS), Pro-Implant基金会,以及外科医生在手术时的评估。根据(1)微生物培养结果、(2)msis标准和(3)外科医生的诊断计算准确性、敏感性、特异性和预测值。采用Fisher精确检验或卡方检验比较髋关节和膝关节置换术的结果,采用Pearson相关性比较两个标准之间的结果。结果应用msis标准诊断spji的占47.7%,idsa标准诊断为49.2%,MSIS-18标准诊断为52.3%,icm标准诊断为55.5%,ebjis标准诊断为62.1%,pro - implant标准诊断为67.2%,根据医生判断诊断为55.1%。亲种植标准与微生物培养的一致性最低,培养阴性感染率为35.5%。ICM-和msis -18标准与外科医生的诊断一致。结论目前研究表明PJI的诊断高度依赖于应用的诊断标准。与其他诊断标准相比,EBJIS和pro - implant标准将更多的病例分类为PJI。应注意避免过度诊断和过度治疗,特别是如果将低滑膜白细胞阈值作为诊断PJI的明确标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Significant differences in the rate of periprosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty depending on the applied definition

Significant differences in the rate of periprosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty depending on the applied definition

Significant differences in the rate of periprosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty depending on the applied definition

Background

Differentiating periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) from aseptic failure is challenging in total joint arthroplasty. To date, there is no consensus about the most accurate criteria to diagnose PJI. The current study compares common diagnostic PJI criteria.

Methods

256 total hip and knee arthroplasties that underwent revision surgery between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively classified as PJI or non PJI according to the following definitions: 2011 Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), 2013 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), 2018 updated MSIS-criteria (MSIS-18), 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infections (ICM), 2021 European Bone and Joint Infections Society (EBJIS), Pro-Implant Foundation, and the surgeons’ assessment at the time of surgery. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated with reference to (1) microbiological culture results, (2) MSIS-criteria, and (3) the surgeons’ diagnosis. Results were compared between hip- and knee arthroplasties using Fisher’s Exact- or Chi-square test, outcomes were compared between two criteria using Pearson correlation.

Results

PJI was diagnosed in 47.7% of cases applying MSIS-criteria, 49.2% for IDSA-criteria, 52.3% for MSIS-18 criteria, 55.5% for ICM-criteria, 62.1% for EBJIS-criteria, 67.2% for Pro-Implant-criteria, and 55.1% according to the surgeons’ judgment. Pro-Implant-criteria showed the lowest concordance with microbiological cultures and a rate of 35.5% culture negative infections. ICM- and MSIS-18-criteria showed best concordance with the surgeons’ diagnosis.

Conclusion

The current study showed that the diagnosis of PJI is highly dependent on the applied diagnostic criteria. EBJIS- and Pro-Implant-criteria classified more cases as PJI compared to other diagnostic criteria. Care should be taken to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially if low synovial white blood cell thresholds are applied as definite criteria to diagnose PJI.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
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