The European Bone and Joint Infection Society definition of periprosthetic joint infection is meaningful in clinical practice: a multicentric validation study with comparison with previous definitions.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Acta Orthopaedica Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI:10.2340/17453674.2023.5670
Ricardo Sousa, Ana Ribau, Pedro Alfaro, Marc-Antoine Burch, Joris Ploegmakers, Martin McNally, Martin Clauss, Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker, Alex Soriano
{"title":"The European Bone and Joint Infection Society definition of periprosthetic joint infection is meaningful in clinical practice: a multicentric validation study with comparison with previous definitions.","authors":"Ricardo Sousa,&nbsp;Ana Ribau,&nbsp;Pedro Alfaro,&nbsp;Marc-Antoine Burch,&nbsp;Joris Ploegmakers,&nbsp;Martin McNally,&nbsp;Martin Clauss,&nbsp;Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker,&nbsp;Alex Soriano","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2023.5670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>A new periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) definition has recently been proposed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). The goals of this paper are to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and compare it with previous definitions and to assess its accuracy in preoperative diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated a multicenter cohort of consecutive revision total hip and knee arthroplasties. Cases with minimum required diagnostic workup were classified according to EBJIS, 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM 2018), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and modified 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definitions. 2 years' minimum follow-up was required to assess clinical outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 472 cases included, PJI was diagnosed in 195 (41%) cases using EBJIS; 188 (40%) cases using IDSA; 172 (36%) using ICM 2018; and 145 (31%) cases using MSIS. EBJIS defined fewer cases as intermediate (5% vs. 9%; p = 0.01) compared with ICM 2018. Specificity was determined by comparing risk of subsequent PJI after revision surgery. Infected cases were associated with higher risk of subsequent PJI in every definition. Cases classified as likely/confirmed infections using EBJIS among those classified as not infected in other definitions showed a significantly higher risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases using MSIS (RR = 3, 95% CI 1-6), but not using ICM 2018 (RR = 2, CI 1-6) or IDSA (RR = 2, CI 1-5). EBJIS showed the highest agreement between pre-operative and definitive classification (k = 0.9, CI 0.8-0.9) and was better at ruling out PJI with an infection unlikely result (sensitivity 89% [84-93], negative predictive value 90% [85-93]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The newly proposed EBJIS definition emerged as the most sensitive of all major definitions. Cases classified as PJI according to the EBJIS criteria and not by other definitions seem to have increased risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases. EBJIS classification is accurate in ruling out infection preoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"94 ","pages":"8-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/da/47/ActaO-94-5670.PMC9880768.pdf","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.5670","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background and purpose: A new periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) definition has recently been proposed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). The goals of this paper are to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and compare it with previous definitions and to assess its accuracy in preoperative diagnosis.

Patients and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a multicenter cohort of consecutive revision total hip and knee arthroplasties. Cases with minimum required diagnostic workup were classified according to EBJIS, 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM 2018), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and modified 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definitions. 2 years' minimum follow-up was required to assess clinical outcome.

Results: Of the 472 cases included, PJI was diagnosed in 195 (41%) cases using EBJIS; 188 (40%) cases using IDSA; 172 (36%) using ICM 2018; and 145 (31%) cases using MSIS. EBJIS defined fewer cases as intermediate (5% vs. 9%; p = 0.01) compared with ICM 2018. Specificity was determined by comparing risk of subsequent PJI after revision surgery. Infected cases were associated with higher risk of subsequent PJI in every definition. Cases classified as likely/confirmed infections using EBJIS among those classified as not infected in other definitions showed a significantly higher risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases using MSIS (RR = 3, 95% CI 1-6), but not using ICM 2018 (RR = 2, CI 1-6) or IDSA (RR = 2, CI 1-5). EBJIS showed the highest agreement between pre-operative and definitive classification (k = 0.9, CI 0.8-0.9) and was better at ruling out PJI with an infection unlikely result (sensitivity 89% [84-93], negative predictive value 90% [85-93]).

Conclusion: The newly proposed EBJIS definition emerged as the most sensitive of all major definitions. Cases classified as PJI according to the EBJIS criteria and not by other definitions seem to have increased risk of subsequent PJI compared with concordant non-infected cases. EBJIS classification is accurate in ruling out infection preoperatively.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
欧洲骨关节感染学会对假体周围关节感染的定义在临床实践中是有意义的:一项与以往定义比较的多中心验证研究。
背景与目的:欧洲骨与关节感染学会(EBJIS)最近提出了一个新的假体周围关节感染(PJI)的定义。本文的目的是评估其诊断准确性,并将其与以往定义进行比较,并评估其在术前诊断中的准确性。患者和方法:我们回顾性评估了一个连续翻修全髋关节和膝关节置换术的多中心队列。根据EBJIS、2018年国际共识会议(ICM 2018)、美国传染病学会(IDSA)和2013年肌肉骨骼感染学会(MSIS)修订的定义,对最低要求诊断检查的病例进行分类。至少需要2年的随访来评估临床结果。结果:纳入的472例患者中,使用EBJIS诊断PJI的195例(41%);188例(40%)采用IDSA;172家(36%)使用ICM 2018;145例(31%)使用MSIS。EBJIS对中间病例的定义较少(5% vs. 9%;p = 0.01)。通过比较翻修手术后PJI的风险来确定特异性。在每种定义中,感染病例与随后的PJI风险较高相关。与使用MSIS (RR = 3, 95% CI 1-6)的一致性非感染病例相比,使用EBJIS分类为可能/确诊感染的病例在其他定义中分类为未感染的病例中显示出明显更高的后续PJI风险(RR = 3, 95% CI 1-6),但不使用ICM 2018 (RR = 2, CI 1-6)或IDSA (RR = 2, CI 1-5)。EBJIS在术前和最终分类之间的一致性最高(k = 0.9, CI 0.8-0.9),并且在排除不太可能发生感染的PJI方面更好(敏感性89%[84-93],阴性预测值90%[85-93])。结论:新提出的EBJIS定义是所有主要定义中最敏感的。根据EBJIS标准而非其他定义归类为PJI的病例,与未感染的病例相比,随后发生PJI的风险似乎增加。EBJIS分类在术前排除感染方面是准确的。
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
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
期刊最新文献
Acute treatment of elderly patients with acetabular fractures by open reduction, internal fixation, and total hip arthroplasty: a 1-10-year follow-up of 48 patients. Incidence and risk factors of adverse events after distal radius fracture fixation with volar locking plates: retrospective analysis of 2,790 cases. The completeness of national hip and knee replacement registers. Can KOOS-PS be replaced with a simple anchor question in patients after total knee arthroplasty?: an agreement study of 2,478 primary surgeries. Erratum: Regional variation in low-value musculoskeletal surgery: a nationwide study from the Finnish Care Register.
×
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