Is ultrasound-guided hip aspiration more successful than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration in diagnosing prosthetic joint infection?

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2023-05-09 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-8-151-2023
Emily A Treu, Daniel M Cushman, John C Wheelwright, Brenna E Blackburn, Masaru Teramoto, Michael J Archibeck
{"title":"Is ultrasound-guided hip aspiration more successful than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration in diagnosing prosthetic joint infection?","authors":"Emily A Treu, Daniel M Cushman, John C Wheelwright, Brenna E Blackburn, Masaru Teramoto, Michael J Archibeck","doi":"10.5194/jbji-8-151-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: aspiration of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is commonly performed to assist in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to determine whether fluoroscopic- or ultrasound- guided hip aspiration differs in the ability to acquire synovial fluid and in the accuracy of diagnosing infection. <b>Methods:</b> all THA aspirations performed between 2014 and 2021 at our institution were retrospectively identified. Aspirations were classified as successful or dry. If successful, the volume of fluid obtained was recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of hip aspiration in identifying PJI were calculated with four methods: (1) culture results excluding saline lavage, (2) culture results including saline lavage, (3) 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria, and (4) 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria. Analyses were performed using Student's <math><mi>t</mi></math> test or Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous variables and chi-squared or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. <b>Results:</b> 290 aspirations were included (155 fluoroscopic-guided and 135 ultrasound-guided). Success of aspiration (<math><mrow><mo>></mo><mn>0.5</mn></mrow></math> mL) was more common in the ultrasound cohort (69 %) than fluoroscopy (53 %) (<math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0.0055</mn></mrow></math>). When successful, more volume was obtained in the ultrasound cohort (mean 13.1 mL vs. 10.0 mL; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.0002</mn></mrow></math>). Ultrasound-guided aspiration was more sensitive than fluoroscopy in diagnosing PJI using culture results excluding saline lavage (85 % vs. 73 %; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.03</mn></mrow></math>), culture results including saline lavage (85 % vs. 69 %; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.001</mn></mrow></math>), 2018 MSIS-ICM criteria (77 % vs. 52 %; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.02</mn></mrow></math>), and 2021 EBJIS criteria (87 % vs. 65 %; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.02</mn></mrow></math>). Ultrasound-guided aspiration was more specific than fluoroscopy in diagnosing PJI using 2021 EBJIS criteria (100 % vs. 96 %; <math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.001</mn></mrow></math>). <b>Conclusions:</b> ultrasound-guided aspiration is more frequently successful and yields more fluid than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration of THA. Ultrasound-guided aspiration is more sensitive in diagnosing PJI than fluoroscopy using culture data, 2018 MSIS-ICM criteria, and 2021 EBJIS criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11106766/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-8-151-2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: aspiration of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is commonly performed to assist in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to determine whether fluoroscopic- or ultrasound- guided hip aspiration differs in the ability to acquire synovial fluid and in the accuracy of diagnosing infection. Methods: all THA aspirations performed between 2014 and 2021 at our institution were retrospectively identified. Aspirations were classified as successful or dry. If successful, the volume of fluid obtained was recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of hip aspiration in identifying PJI were calculated with four methods: (1) culture results excluding saline lavage, (2) culture results including saline lavage, (3) 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria, and (4) 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria. Analyses were performed using Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous variables and chi-squared or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Results: 290 aspirations were included (155 fluoroscopic-guided and 135 ultrasound-guided). Success of aspiration (>0.5 mL) was more common in the ultrasound cohort (69 %) than fluoroscopy (53 %) (p<0.0055). When successful, more volume was obtained in the ultrasound cohort (mean 13.1 mL vs. 10.0 mL; p=0.0002). Ultrasound-guided aspiration was more sensitive than fluoroscopy in diagnosing PJI using culture results excluding saline lavage (85 % vs. 73 %; p=0.03), culture results including saline lavage (85 % vs. 69 %; p=0.001), 2018 MSIS-ICM criteria (77 % vs. 52 %; p=0.02), and 2021 EBJIS criteria (87 % vs. 65 %; p=0.02). Ultrasound-guided aspiration was more specific than fluoroscopy in diagnosing PJI using 2021 EBJIS criteria (100 % vs. 96 %; p=0.001). Conclusions: ultrasound-guided aspiration is more frequently successful and yields more fluid than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration of THA. Ultrasound-guided aspiration is more sensitive in diagnosing PJI than fluoroscopy using culture data, 2018 MSIS-ICM criteria, and 2021 EBJIS criteria.

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
在诊断人工关节感染方面,超声引导的髋关节抽吸比荧光镜引导的抽吸更成功吗?
摘要导读:全髋关节置换术(THA)的抽吸通常用于辅助假体关节感染(PJI)的诊断。本研究旨在确定透视或超声引导下的髋关节抽吸在获取滑液的能力和诊断感染的准确性方面是否存在差异。方法:回顾性分析我院2014年至2021年间进行的所有THA置入。志向分为成功和干枯两类。如果成功,则记录获得的液体体积。通过四种方法计算髋关节抽吸识别pji的敏感性和特异性:(1)不含盐水灌洗的培养结果,(2)含盐水灌洗的培养结果,(3)2018年肌肉骨骼感染学会(MSIS)国际共识会议(ICM)标准,以及(4)2021年欧洲骨和关节感染学会(EBJIS)标准。对连续变量采用学生t检验或Wilcoxon秩和,对分类变量采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验。结果:共入组290例,其中透视引导下155例,超声引导下135例。超声组吸痰(>0.5 mL)成功率(69%)高于透视组(53%)(p<0.0055)。当成功时,超声队列中获得的体积更大(平均13.1 mL vs. 10.0 mL;p = 0.0002)。超声引导下抽吸比利用培养结果诊断PJI更敏感,不包括生理盐水灌洗(85% vs. 73%;P =0.03),培养结果包括生理盐水灌洗(85% vs. 69%;p=0.001), 2018年MSIS-ICM标准(77%对52%;p=0.02), 2021年EBJIS标准(87% vs. 65%;p = 0.02)。采用2021EBJIS标准诊断PJI时,超声引导下穿刺比透视更具特异性(100% vs. 96%;p = 0.001)。结论:超声引导下的THA抽吸比透视引导下的THA抽吸更成功,产生更多的液体。超声引导下吸痰诊断PJI比使用培养数据、2018 MSIS-ICM标准和2021 ebjis标准的透视检查更敏感。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Musculoskeletal manifestations of lower-extremity coccidioidomycosis: a case series Emergence of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci on the skin and nose of rifampicin-treated patients with an orthopaedic-device-related infection What is the agreement between principles and practice of antibiotic stewardship in the management of diabetic foot infection: an in-hospital quality control study. It is time for a unified definition of native vertebral osteomyelitis: a framework proposal. Ureaplasma urealyticum osteomyelitis of the greater trochanter in a patient with multiple sclerosis using ocrelizumab – a case report
×
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