Diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing to detect periprosthetic joint infection

Higher diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing versus culture in periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The next-generation sequencing (NGS) has developed rapidly in the past decade and is becoming a promising diagnostic tool for periprosthetic infection (PJI). However, its diagnostic value for PJI is still uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of NGS compared to culture.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from inception to 12 November 2023. Diagnostic parameters, such as sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio and area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC), were calculated for the included studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 2461 patients were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of NGS were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83-90), 94% (95% CI: 91-96) and 111 (95% CI: 70-177), respectively. On the other hand, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of culture were 63% (95% CI: 58-67), 98% (95% CI: 96-99) and 93 (95% CI: 40-212), respectively. The SROC curve for NGS and culture showed that the AUCs are 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found NGS had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy but slightly lower specificity than culture. Based on the pooled results, we suggested NGS may have the potential to be a new tool for the diagnosis of PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Differences in Diagnostic Sensitivity of Cultures Between Sample Types in Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Differences between the bacterial culture results of the preoperative fluid, intraoperative tissue, and sonication fluid of implants in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are important issues in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify the differences in pooled diagnostic accuracy between culture sample types for diagnosing PJI by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Data extraction and study assessment using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies were performed independently by two reviewers. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated for each sample type.

RESULTS

There were thirty-two studies that were included in the analysis after screening and eligibility assessment. The pooled sensitivities of preoperative fluid, intraoperative tissue, and sonication fluid for the diagnosis of PJI were 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.70), 0.71 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.79), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.85), while the specificities were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.98), 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.96), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.95), respectively. The area under the curves for preoperative fluid, intraoperative tissue, and sonication fluid were 0.86, 0.88, and 0.90, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sonication fluid culture demonstrated better sensitivity compared with the conventional culture method, and preoperative fluid culture provided lower sensitivity in diagnosing PJI.

Gloves Contamination During Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

The use of double gloving has become a standard practice for joint replacement surgeons. However, since there are limited data on how gloves are contaminated during both primary and revision arthroplasty, no precise protocol exists to direct surgeons on when, or if, to change their gloves. The goals of this preliminary study were to evaluate the contamination of gloves during total joint arthroplasties (TJAs).

METHODS

We included 25 infected cases and 10 primaries, which were performed at the same institution using the same surgical protocol from 3 fellowship trained surgeons. Samples were taken every 20 minutes from the start of the surgery until the joint was irrigated. Procedural steps were noted. To evaluate cross-contamination during infected cases, we sampled gloves using blood agar plates. In primary cases, culture swabs of anterior chamfer cuts and sterile instruments on the back table were used as negative controls. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used as an adjunct to identify low virulence bacteria.

RESULTS

In the primary cases, all samples were found culture negative but 3 (8.1%) of the 37 samples were found to have a low, unidentifiable bacterial mass via NGS testing. In the infected cases, 41 (59.4%) of the 69 samples yielded positive microbial results. The positivity rate was higher in the samples collected after the arthrotomy was performed (70%) compared to samples collected before the arthrotomy was performed (40%), and the surgeon was only dissecting superficial layers (P = .502).

CONCLUSION

Gloves seem to be a common source of cross-contamination in the intraoperative field during revision TJA. Due to the higher percent of positive samples following the opening of the joint, we hypothesize that the arthrotomy allows for the spread of bacteria across the operative site. While further investigation is necessary to formulate a precise protocol for the changing of gloves during TJA, it may be beneficial to perform a thorough irrigation of the joint and change of the gloves immediately following arthrotomy.

Limited value of platelet-related markers in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic values of serum platelet count (PC), mean platelet volume ratio (MPV), platelet count to mean platelet volume ratio (PVR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), platelet to neutrophil ratio (PNR), PC/Albumin-globulin ratio (PC/AGR), and PC/C-reactive protein (PC/ CRP) in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

The medical records were retrospectively analyzed of the 158 patients who had undergone hip or knee revisions from January 2018 to May 2022. Of them, 79 cases were diagnosed with PJI and 79 with aseptic loosening (AL). PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. The plasma levels of CRP, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), PC, MPV, PVR, PLR, PNR, PC/AGR, and PC/CRP in the 2 groups were recorded and analyzed. In addition, tests were performed according to different joint types. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of each indicator. The diagnostic value for each indicator was calculated according to the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

The PC, PVR, PLR and PC/AGR levels in the PJI group were significantly higher than those in the AL group, while PC/CRP levels were significantly lower (P < 0.001). The AUC for PC/CRP, and PC/AGR was 0.804 and 0.802, respectively, which were slightly lower than that of CRP (0.826) and ESR (0.846). ROC analysis for PC/CRP, and PC/AGR revealed a cut-off value of 37.80 and 160.63, respectively, which provided a sensitivity of 73.42% and 84.81% and a specificity of 75.95% and 65.82% for PJI. The area under the curve of PLR and PC was 0.738 and 0.702. The area under the curve values for PVR, PNR, and MPV were 0.672, 0.553, and 0.544, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that PC, PLR, PC/CRP, and PC/AGR values do not offer significant advantages over ESR or CRP values when employed for the diagnosis of PJI. PVR, PNR, and MPV were not reliable in the diagnosis of PJI.

Higher sensitivity and accuracy of synovial next-generation sequencing in comparison to culture in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic parameters of synovial next-generation sequencing (NGS) and cultures in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until 8 Jan 2022 for literature investigating the role of NGS in comparison to culture in the diagnosis of PJI. The studies were included if they investigated the diagnostic value of culture and NGS in diagnosing PJIs against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Diagnostic parameters, such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC), were calculated for the included studies to evaluate the performance of NGS in comparison to culture in PJI diagnosis.

RESULTS

The total number of the included patients was 341 from seven articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of NGS were 94% (95% CI 91-97%), 89% (95% CI 82-95%), and 138.5 (95% CI 49.1-390.5), respectively. NGS has positive- and negative-likelihood ratios of 7.9 (95% CI 3.99-15.6) and 0.1 (95% CI 0.0-0.1), respectively. On the other hand, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of culture were 70% (95% CI 61-79%), 94% (95% CI 88-98%), and 28.0 (95% CI 12.6-62.2), respectively. The SROC curve for NGS showed that the accuracy (AUC) was 91.9%, and that the positive and negative predictive values were 8.6 (95% CI 5.0-19.5) and 0.1 (95% CI 0.0-0.1), respectively. While, culture SROC curve demonstrated that the accuracy (AUC) was 80.5% and the positive- and negative-likelihood ratio were 12.1 (95% CI 4.5-49.6) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.2-0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

NGS has a potential role in diagnosing hip and knee PJIs due to its high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. However, the sensitivity and specificity reported by the studies varied according to the time of synovial sampling (preoperative, postoperative, or mixed).

Comparison of microbial detection rates in microbial culture methods versus next-generation sequencing in patients with prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) enables early and effective treatment. However, there is currently no gold standard test for microbial detection of PJI and traditional synovial fluid culture is relatively insensitive. Recently, it has been reported that sonicating fluid culture and next-generation sequencing (NGS) improve microbial detection rates. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare microbial detection rates in microbial culture methods with and without sonication versus NGS.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Ichushi databases and other sources (previous reviews) until August 2022. We evaluated the detection rates of pathogens in NGS and microbial cultures using samples of synovial or sonicated fluid.

RESULTS

Of the 170 citations identified for screening, nine studies were included. Pooled analysis indicated that NGS had the highest detection rate among the microbial detection methods (NGS vs. sonicated, odds ratios [OR] 5.09, 95% confidential interval [CI] 1.67-15.50; NGS vs. synovial, OR 4.52, 95% CI 2.86-7.16). Sonicated fluid culture showed a higher detection rate than synovial fluid culture (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.23-3.62).

CONCLUSION

NGS might be useful as a screening tool for culture-negative patients. In clinical settings, sonicated fluid culture is a practical method for diagnosing PJI.

Characterization of periprosthetic environment microbiome in patients after total joint arthroplasty and its potential correlation with inflammation

AIMS

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most serious complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) but the characterization of the periprosthetic environment microbiome after TJA remains unknown. Here, we performed a prospective study based on metagenomic next-generation sequencing to explore the periprosthetic microbiota in patients with suspected PJI.

METHODS

We recruited 28 patients with culture-positive PJI, 14 patients with culture-negative PJI, and 35 patients without PJI, which was followed by joint aspiration, untargeted metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), and bioinformatics analysis. Our results showed that the periprosthetic environment microbiome was significantly different between the PJI group and the non-PJI group. Then, we built a "typing system" for the periprosthetic microbiota based on the RandomForest Model. After that, the 'typing system' was verified externally.

RESULTS

We found the periprosthetic microbiota can be classified into four types generally: "Staphylococcus type," "Pseudomonas type," "Escherichia type," and "Cutibacterium type." Importantly, these four types of microbiotas had different clinical signatures, and the patients with the former two microbiota types showed obvious inflammatory responses compared to the latter ones. Based on the 2014 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, clinical PJI was more likely to be confirmed when the former two types were encountered. In addition, the Staphylococcus spp. with compositional changes were correlated with C-reactive protein levels, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and the synovial fluid white blood cell count and granulocyte percentage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shed light on the characterization of the periprosthetic environment microbiome in patients after TJA. Based on the RandomForest model, we established a basic "typing system" for the microbiota in the periprosthetic environment. This work can provide a reference for future studies about the characterization of periprosthetic microbiota in periprosthetic joint infection patients.

An update on recent progress of the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of acute septic arthritis: a review

Acute septic arthritis is on the rise among all patients. Acute septic arthritis must be extensively assessed, identified, and treated to prevent fatal consequences. Antimicrobial therapy administered intravenously has long been considered the gold standard for treating acute osteoarticular infections. According to clinical research, parenteral antibiotics for a few days, followed by oral antibiotics, are safe and effective for treating infections without complications. This article focuses on bringing physicians up-to-date on the most recent findings and discussions about the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of acute septic arthritis. In recent years, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant, particularly aggressive bacterial species has highlighted the need for more research to enhance treatment approaches and develop innovative diagnosis methods and drugs that might combat better in all patients. This article aims to furnish radiologists, orthopaedic surgeons, and other medical practitioners with contemporary insights on the subject matter and foster collaborative efforts to improve patient outcomes. This review represents the initial comprehensive update encompassing patients across all age groups.

Advances in the Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infections

A significant number of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are culture-negative and/or misinterpreted as aseptic failures in spite of the correct implementation of diagnostic culture techniques, such as tissue sample processing in a bead mill, prolonged incubation time, or sonication of removed implants. Misinterpretation may lead to unnecessary surgery and needless antimicrobial treatment. The diagnostic value of non-culture techniques has been investigated in synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues, and sonication fluid. Different feasible improvements, such as real-time technology, automated systems and commercial kits are now available to support microbiologists. In this review, we describe non-culture techniques based on nucleic acid amplification and sequencing methods. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a frequently used technique in most microbiology laboratories which allows the detection of a nucleic acid fragment by sequence amplification. Different PCR types can be used to diagnose PJI, each one requiring the selection of appropriate primers. Henceforward, thanks to the reduced cost of sequencing and the availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS), it will be possible to identify the whole pathogen genome sequence and, additionally, to detect all the pathogen sequences present in the joint. Although these new techniques have proved helpful, strict conditions need to be observed in order to detect fastidious microorganisms and rule out contaminants. Specialized microbiologists should assist clinicians in interpreting the result of the analyses at interdisciplinary meetings. New technologies will gradually be made available to improve the etiologic diagnoses of PJI, which will remain an important cornerstone of treatment. Strong collaboration among all specialists involved is essential for the correct diagnosis of PJI.

Profiling the Immune Response to Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Non-Infectious Arthroplasty Failure

Arthroplasty failure is a major complication of joint replacement surgery. It can be caused by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or non-infectious etiologies, and often requires surgical intervention and (in select scenarios) resection and reimplantation of implanted devices. Fast and accurate diagnosis of PJI and non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) is critical to direct medical and surgical treatment; differentiation of PJI from NIAF may, however, be unclear in some cases. Traditional culture, nucleic acid amplification tests, metagenomic, and metatranscriptomic techniques for microbial detection have had success in differentiating the two entities, although microbiologically negative apparent PJI remains a challenge. Single host biomarkers or, alternatively, more advanced immune response profiling-based approaches may be applied to differentiate PJI from NIAF, overcoming limitations of microbial-based detection methods and possibly, especially with newer approaches, augmenting them. In this review, current approaches to arthroplasty failure diagnosis are briefly overviewed, followed by a review of host-based approaches for differentiation of PJI from NIAF, including exciting futuristic combinational multi-omics methodologies that may both detect pathogens and assess biological responses, illuminating causes of arthroplasty failure.

The Diagnostic Value of Blood Next-Generation Sequencing in Early Surgical Site Infection After Spine Surgery

Objective

To determine the diagnostic value of blood next-generation sequencing (NGS) in early surgical site infection after spine surgery. Because the blood is sterile in healthy individuals, it is expected that blood NGS is both sensitive and specific for the detection of infection.

Methods

A total of 28 patients with definitive spinal surgical site infections and controls (n=30) were retrospectively included. The postoperative results of NGS and culture on different samples, such as blood and drainage fluid, were obtained and compared to evaluate the diagnostic value of blood NGS. The diagnostic value parameters (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) were calculated.

Results

Among the four bacteriological exam methods, blood NGS was both sensitive and specific for the determination of infection after spine surgery. The sensitivities of blood and drainage fluid NGS were similar (0.82 vs 0.89, P=0.617). However, the specificities of the two assessments differed, which were 0.97 for blood NGS and 0.40 for drainage fluid NGS (P<0.001). The sensitivities of bacterial culture were lower than those of NGS (blood: 0.82 vs 0.25, P<0.001; drainage fluid: 0.89 vs 0.61, P<0.001), regardless of the sample type. However, the specificities of bacterial culture were equal to or higher than those of NGS (blood: 0.97 vs 0.97, P=1.000; drainage fluid: 0.40 vs 0.80, P=0.002).

Conclusion

This article emphasizes the superiority of blood NGS in infection detection and bacterial determination in patients undergoing spine surgery. Compared with traditional drainage fluid bacterial culture and NGS, blood NGS was more sensitive and specific, and its extensive application could be expected.

Serum versus synovial fluid interleukin-6 for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 diagnostic test accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

Early and accurate detection of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after hip and/or knee arthroplasty remains challenging. This systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serum and synovial fluid interleukin (IL)-6 in detecting PJI.

METHODS

We searched 3 databases for studies through December 31, 2021, using medical sub-headings terms and keywords. Studies reported sensitivity and specificity of serum and synovial fluid IL-6 in detecting PJI were considered. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serum and synovial fluid IL-6.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, DOR, and AUC of serum IL-6 in detecting PJI were 0.76 (0.69-0.81), 0.88 (0.82-0.92), 6.2 (4.3-9.0), 0.28 (0.22-0.35), 22 (14-36), and 0.88 (0.85-0.91), respectively. However, synovial fluid IL-6 achieved a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (0.75-0.93), specificity of 0.90 (0.85-0.93), positive and negative likelihood ratio of 8.5 (5.3-13.6) and 0.15 (0.08-0.29), DOR of 57 (21-156), and AUC of 0.94 (0.92-0.96), which were higher than serum IL-6.

CONCLUSIONS

Synovial fluid IL-6 test may be a promising test for PJI after hip and/or knee arthroplasty. However, considering the limited volume of synovial fluid and invasive acquisition of synovial fluid IL-6, serum IL-6 test may be also considered.

Reliable Diagnostic Tests and Thresholds for Preoperative Diagnosis of Non-Inflammatory Arthritis Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Objective

The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and unify their diagnostic accuracy and the threshold selection of serum and synovial routine tests for PJI at an early stage.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for retrospective or prospective studies which reported preoperative‐available assays (serum, synovial, or culture tests) for the diagnosis of chronic PJI among inflammatory arthritis (IA) or non‐IA populations from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022. Threshold effective analysis was performed on synovial polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN%), synovial white blood cell (WBC), serum C‐reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) to find the relevant cut‐offs.

Results

Two hundred and sixteen studies and information from 45,316 individuals were included in the final analysis. Synovial laboratory‐based α‐defensin and calprotectin had the best comprehensive sensitivity (0.91 [0.86–0.94], 0.95 [0.88–0.98]) and specificity (0.96 [0.94‐0.97], 0.95 [0.89–0.98]) values. According to the threshold effect analysis, the recommended cut‐offs are 70% (sensitivity 0.89 [0.85–0.92], specificity 0.90 [0.87–0.93]), 4100/μL (sensitivity 0.90 [0.87–0.93], specificity 0.97 [0.93–0.98]), 13.5 mg/L (sensitivity 0.84 [0.78–0.89], specificity 0.83 [0.73–0.89]), and 30 mm/h (sensitivity 0.79 [0.74–0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.72–0.83]) for synovial PMN%, synovial WBC, serum CRP, and ESR, respectively, and tests seem to be more reliable among non‐IA patients.

Conclusions

The laboratory‐based synovial α‐defensin and synovial calprotectin are the two best independent preoperative diagnostic tests for PJI. A cut off of 70% for synovial PMN% and tighter cut‐offs for synovial WBC and serum CRP could have a better diagnostic accuracy for non‐IA patients with chronic PJI.

A 92 protein inflammation panel performed on sonicate fluid differentiates periprosthetic joint infection from non-infectious causes of arthroplasty failure

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of total joint arthroplasty, typically necessitating surgical intervention and prolonged antimicrobial therapy. Currently, there is no perfect assay for PJI diagnosis. Proteomic profiling of sonicate fluid has the potential to differentiate PJI from non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) and possibly clinical subsets of PJI and/or NIAF. In this study, 200 sonicate fluid samples, including 90 from subjects with NIAF (23 aseptic loosening, 35 instability, 10 stiffness, five osteolysis, and 17 other) and 110 from subjects with PJI (40 Staphylococcus aureus, 40 Staphylococcus epidermidis, 10 Staphylococcus lugdunensis, 10 Streptococcus agalactiae, and 10 Enterococcus faecalis) were analyzed by proximity extension assay using the 92 protein Inflammation Panel from Olink Proteomics. Thirty-seven of the 92 proteins examined, including CCL20, OSM, EN-RAGE, IL8, and IL6, were differentially expressed in PJI versus NIAF sonicate fluid samples, with none of the 92 proteins differentially expressed between staphylococcal versus non-staphylococcal PJI, nor between the different types of NIAF studied. IL-17A and CCL11 were differentially expressed between PJI caused by different bacterial species, with IL-17A detected at higher levels in S. aureus compared to S. epidermidis and S. lugdunensis PJI, and CCL11 detected at higher levels in S. epidermidis compared to S. aureus and S. agalactiae PJI. Receiver operative characteristic curve analysis identified individual proteins and combinations of proteins that could differentiate PJI from NIAF. Overall, proteomic profiling using this small protein panel was able to differentiate between PJI and NIAF sonicate samples and provide a better understanding of the immune response during arthroplasty failure.

Synovial fluid calprotectin performs better than synovial fluid polymerase chain reaction and interleukin-6 in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection : a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenge due to a lack of biomarkers that are both sensitive and specific. We investigated the performance characteristics of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), interleukin-6 (IL6), and calprotectin of synovial fluid in the diagnosis of PJI.

METHODS

We performed systematic search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Science Direct from the date of inception of each database through to 31 May 2021. Studies which described the diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid PCR, IL6, and calprotectin using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria as the reference standard were identified.

RESULTS

Overall, 31 studies were identified: 20 described PCR, six described IL6, and five calprotectin. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.86) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), respectively, for synovial PCR;, 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96), respectively, for synovial IL6; and 0.94 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.97), respectively, for synovial calprotectin. Likelihood ratio scattergram analyses recommended clinical utility of synovial fluid PCR and IL6 as a confirmatory test only. Synovial calprotectin had utility in the exclusion and confirmation of PJI.

CONCLUSION

Synovial fluid PCR and IL6 had low sensitivity and high specificity in the diagnosis of PJI, and is recommended to be used as confirmatory test. In contrast, synovial fluid calprotectin had both high sensitivity and specificity with utility in both the exclusion and confirmation of PJI. We recommend use of synovial fluid calprotectin studies in the preoperative workup of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):311-320.

Diagnostic Value of Next-Generation Sequencing in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review

Next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has developed rapidly in the last decade and is emerging as a promising diagnostic tool for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, its diagnostic value for PJI is still uncertain. This systematic review aimed to explore the diagnostic value of NGS for PJI and verify its accuracy for culture‐negative PJI patients. We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify diagnostic technique studies evaluating the accuracy of NGS in the diagnosis of PJI. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated for each article. The detection rate of NGS for culture‐negative PJI patients or PJI patients with antibiotic administration history was also calculated. Of the 87 identified citations, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of NGS ranged from 63% to 96% and 73% to 100%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values ranged from 71% to 100% and 74% to 95%, respectively. The detection rate of NGS for culture‐negative PJI patients in six studies was higher than 50% (range from 82% to 100%), while in three studies it was lower than 50% (range from 9% to 31%). Also, the detection rate of NGS for PJIs with antibiotic administration history ranged from 74.05% to 92.31%. In conclusion, this systematic review suggests that NGS may have the potential to be a new tool for the diagnosis of PJI and should be considered to be added to the portfolio of diagnostic procedures. Furthermore, NGS showed a favorable diagnostic accuracy for culture‐negative PJI patients or PJI patients with antibiotic administration history. However, due to the small sample sizes of studies and substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, more research is needed to confirm or disprove these findings.