The role of sonication in microbiology culture yield of the explanted infected implants post fracture fixation: A systematic review

Vincent Lewis Mkochi, Richard Dimock, Alexander Thomas Schade
{"title":"The role of sonication in microbiology culture yield of the explanted infected implants post fracture fixation: A systematic review","authors":"Vincent Lewis Mkochi, Richard Dimock, Alexander Thomas Schade","doi":"10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20657.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To evaluate the role of sonication in cases of postoperative infection following fracture fixation. Methods A systematic review of studies comparing peri-implant tissue culture (PTC) and sonication fluid culture (SFC) from implants removed due to fracture-related infection was conducted. The inclusion criteria were: published in English, human studies, implants from fracture-related infection, and tests comparing the culture of deep tissue and sonication fluid. The quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skill Program (CASP) tool. The sensitivity, specificity, implant preservation mechanism to avoid contamination, cost, and duration of incubation for PTC and SFC were extracted and compared using descriptive statistics. Results Nine studies with a total of 1,144 participants were included. The overall mean sensitivity of SFC and PTC was 88.9% (95% CI: 84.6-92.4%) and 67.8% (95% CI: 60.9-74.2%), respectively. While the specificity of SFC and PTC was 96.2% (95% CI: 94.7-97.4%) and 98.5% (95% CI: 97.7-99.0%), respectively. However, the cost-effectiveness of sonication as a diagnostic method for sonication remains unclear, as only one study estimated the price of sonication to be $228.00 per test, similar to PTC. Conclusions Sonication fluid culture might improve sensitivity in diagnosing postoperative infection following fracture fixation. This technique can potentially enhance the microbiological output and provide valuable guidance to healthcare professionals in treating infection after fracture fixation. However, more high-quality trials are needed to establish its optimal use, especially cost-effectiveness. Registration The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022338190; 18 June 2022).","PeriodicalId":508490,"journal":{"name":"Wellcome Open Research","volume":"78 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wellcome Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20657.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the role of sonication in cases of postoperative infection following fracture fixation. Methods A systematic review of studies comparing peri-implant tissue culture (PTC) and sonication fluid culture (SFC) from implants removed due to fracture-related infection was conducted. The inclusion criteria were: published in English, human studies, implants from fracture-related infection, and tests comparing the culture of deep tissue and sonication fluid. The quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skill Program (CASP) tool. The sensitivity, specificity, implant preservation mechanism to avoid contamination, cost, and duration of incubation for PTC and SFC were extracted and compared using descriptive statistics. Results Nine studies with a total of 1,144 participants were included. The overall mean sensitivity of SFC and PTC was 88.9% (95% CI: 84.6-92.4%) and 67.8% (95% CI: 60.9-74.2%), respectively. While the specificity of SFC and PTC was 96.2% (95% CI: 94.7-97.4%) and 98.5% (95% CI: 97.7-99.0%), respectively. However, the cost-effectiveness of sonication as a diagnostic method for sonication remains unclear, as only one study estimated the price of sonication to be $228.00 per test, similar to PTC. Conclusions Sonication fluid culture might improve sensitivity in diagnosing postoperative infection following fracture fixation. This technique can potentially enhance the microbiological output and provide valuable guidance to healthcare professionals in treating infection after fracture fixation. However, more high-quality trials are needed to establish its optimal use, especially cost-effectiveness. Registration The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022338190; 18 June 2022).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声处理对骨折固定后外露感染植入物微生物培养产量的作用:系统综述
目的 评估超声处理在骨折固定术后感染病例中的作用。方法 对因骨折相关感染而取出的植入物进行植入物周围组织培养(PTC)和超声液培养(SFC)的比较研究进行了系统性回顾。纳入标准为:英文发表、人类研究、骨折相关感染的植入物、比较深层组织培养和超声流体培养的试验。研究质量采用关键评估技能计划(CASP)工具进行评估。采用描述性统计方法提取并比较了 PTC 和 SFC 的灵敏度、特异性、避免污染的植入物保存机制、成本和培养持续时间。结果 共纳入了九项研究,共有 1,144 人参与。SFC和PTC的总体平均灵敏度分别为88.9%(95% CI:84.6-92.4%)和67.8%(95% CI:60.9-74.2%)。而 SFC 和 PTC 的特异性分别为 96.2% (95% CI: 94.7-97.4%) 和 98.5% (95% CI: 97.7-99.0%)。然而,超声作为超声诊断方法的成本效益仍不明确,因为只有一项研究估计超声检测的价格为每次 228.00 美元,与 PTC 相似。结论 超声液体培养可提高诊断骨折固定术后感染的灵敏度。该技术有可能提高微生物产量,为医护人员治疗骨折固定术后感染提供有价值的指导。不过,还需要更多高质量的试验来确定其最佳用途,尤其是成本效益。注册 该研究方案已在 PROSPERO 上注册(CRD42022338190;2022 年 6 月 18 日)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The genome sequence of the bloodfluke planorb, Biomphalaria glabrata (Say, 1818) The genome sequence of the blonde ray, Raja brachyura Lafont, 1871 The genome sequence of the Northern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus (Forster, 1770) The genome sequence of the Maiden’s Blush moth, Cyclophora punctaria (Linnaeus, 1758) The genome sequence of a jewel beetle, Agrilus biguttatus (Fabricius, 1776)
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1