Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection and Its Diagnosis

Efficacy and safety of pericapsular nerve group block in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring effective perioperative pain control is a crucial aspect of rehabilitation programs following total hip arthroplasty. This study presents a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) in the context of total hip arthroplasty.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, to identify relevant randomized controlled studies investigating the efficacy and safety of PENG for total hip arthroplasty. The search was conducted up until 1st June 2023. Data analysis was performed using Stata v. 15.0.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 721 individuals participated in this study, which included 13 randomized controlled trials. Among them, 377 individuals were assigned to the experimental group, while 344 individuals were assigned to the control group. The findings from the meta-analysis indicated that the application of PENG yielded favorable outcomes in terms of reducing six-hour pain scores (SMD=-0.63, 95% CI -1.18, -0.09) and 24-hour pain scores (SMD=-1.45, 95% CI -2.51, -0.29). Moreover, it was found to decrease opioid consumption (SMD=-0.84, 95% CI -1.35, -0.34), without causing a significant increase in nausea and vomiting (RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.45, 1.23) or urinary retention (RR=2.46, 95% CI 0.49, 12.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the latest findings, PENG has been shown to effectively decrease pain scores within six and 24 hours following total hip arthroplasty. However, its effectiveness in pain control diminishes after 48 hours. Additionally, PENG has demonstrated the ability to reduce opioid consumption without an accompanying increase in adverse drug events.

The role of advanced metal artifact reduction MRI in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

Identification and diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are challenging, requiring a multi-disciplinary approach involving clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. MRI is advantageous to alternative imaging techniques due to superior soft tissue contrast and absence of ionizing radiation. However, the presence of metallic implants can cause signal loss and artifacts. Metal artifact suppression (MARS) MRI techniques have been developed that mitigate metal artifacts and improve periprosthetic soft tissue visualization. This paper provides a review of the various MARS MRI techniques, their clinical applicability and accuracy in PJI diagnosis and evaluation, and current challenges and future perspectives.

Diagnostic Value of Advanced Metal Artifact Reduction Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Magnetic resonance imaging around metal joint prostheses including multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination selective at 1.5 T (from April 2014 to August 2020) was retrospectively evaluated by 2 radiologists for detection of abnormal findings (joint effusion, capsular thickening, pericapsular edema, soft-tissue fluid collection, soft-tissue edema, bone marrow edema pattern around the implant [BME pattern], lymphadenopathy, and others) and overall image impression for PJI. Regarding the soft-tissue fluid collection, presence of communication to the joint or capsular-like structure was evaluated. Clinical assessments were recorded. Positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs), and odds ratios (ORs) for PJI were calculated for the abnormal findings. Overall image impression for PJI was evaluated. χ2, Fisher exact, t, and Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used. Interobserver agreement was assessed with κ statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-three joints in 36 patients (mean ± SD age, 75.4 ± 8.8 years; 30 women; hip [n = 29], knee [n = 12], and elbow [n = 2]) were evaluated. Eighteen joints (42%) were clinically diagnosed as PJI. The findings suggesting PJI were capsular thickening (PPV, 70%; NPV, 90%; OR, 20.6), soft-tissue fluid collection (PPV, 81%; NPV, 81%; OR, 19.1), soft-tissue edema (PPV, 67%; NPV, 89%; OR, 17), pericapsular edema (PPV, 76%; NPV, 81%; OR, 13.7), and joint effusion (PPV, 55%; NPV, 100%; OR, 12). Soft-tissue fluid collection without capsular-like structure (PPV, 83%; NPV, 74%; OR, 14.4) or with communication to the joint (PPV, 75%; NPV, 71%; OR, 7.3) suggested PJI. The combinations of joint effusion, capsular thickening, pericapsular edema, soft-tissue fluid collection, and soft-tissue edema highly suggested PJI. Regarding the BME pattern, the combination with soft-tissue edema raised the possibility of PJI (PPV, 73%; NPV, 69%; OR, 5.9). Regarding the interobserver agreements for each abnormal finding, κ values were 0.60 to 0.77. Regarding the overall image impression, weighted κ value was 0.97 and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.949 (95% confidence interval, 0.893-1.005) and 0.926 (95% confidence interval, 0.860-0.991) with no significant difference (P = 0.534).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggesting PJI were capsular thickening, soft-tissue fluid collection, soft-tissue edema, pericapsular edema, and joint effusion. The combinations of them highly suggested PJI. Regarding the BME pattern, the combination with soft-tissue edema raised the possibility of PJI.