Combination Tests in the Diagnosis of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Systematic Review and Development of a Stepwise Clinical Decision-Making Tool

Update on the role of pathology and laboratory medicine in diagnosing periprosthetic infection

Technological and implant design advances have helped reduce the frequency of aseptic total joint arthroplasty failure, but periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) remain a clinical important problem with high patient morbidity. Misinterpreting PJI as aseptic mechanical loosening commonly leads to unsatisfactory revision arthroplasty, persistent infection, and poor long-term results. While there is no single "gold standard" diagnostic test for PJI, recent collaborative efforts by Orthopaedic and Infectious Disease Societies have developed algorithms for diagnosing PJI. However, the efficacy of individual tests as well as diagnostic thresholds are controversial. We review the recommended thresholds for commonly used screening tests as well as tissue histopathology and confirmatory tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. We also update lesser-known laboratory tests, and we briefly summarize rapidly evolving molecular tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. Pathologists hold a critical role in assisting with PJI diagnosis, maintaining laboratory test quality and interpreting test results. Collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is essential to provide optimal patient care and reduce the burden 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.

Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to provide an up to date understanding of the utility and limitations of the current tests utilized in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee and hip arthroplasty.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the growth in literature surrounding PJI diagnosis, there remains challenges in establishing a diagnosis of PJI. A combination of clinical, serum, and synovial tests and microbiologic and histologic examinations can yield a diagnosis in the majority of cases. Novel molecular and imaging studies may be beneficial for indeterminant cases. A number of emerging diagnostic tests have been proposed and may be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms in the future. Recently proposed stepwise diagnostic algorithms have shown high sensitivity and specificity. The diagnosis of PJI remains challenging due to a lack of tests that can definitively rule out infection. Diagnosis and investigations should occur in a stepwise fashion. There has been a plethora of new diagnostic tests introduced in attempts to improve the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms. The definition and algorithms for the diagnoses of PJI will continue to evolve as new techniques and tests are introduced.

Serum and Synovial Biomarkers for Distinguishing Between Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory responses in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may lead to the current serum and synovial fluid biomarkers that misidentify chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We sought to investigate the expression of serum and synovial biomarkers in patients with active RA and to calculate thresholds for valuable biomarkers that distinguish between chronic PJI and active RA.

METHODS

This prospective study was initiated to enroll 70 patients undergoing revision arthroplasty from January 2019 to January 2021, and 30 patients with active RA cumulative knee from August 2020 to March 2021. The Musculoskeletal Infection Society definition of PJI was utilized for the classification of cases as aseptic or infected. Serum d-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6 (IL-6), as well as synovial IL-6, percentage of polymorphonuclear neutrophils, and CD64 index level were measured preoperatively.

RESULTS

An increase in biomarker concentrations were observed in group C (active RA). Synovial fluid CD64 index exhibited good discriminatory power between group B (chronic PJI) and group C with an area under curve of 0.930. For the diagnosis of chronic PJI in the presence of active RA, the optimal threshold value of synovial CD64 index was 0.87, with a sensitivity of 82.86% and a specificity of 93.33%.

CONCLUSION

Current serum biomarkers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, IL-6, and d-dimer) did not apply to the diagnosis of suspected PJI with active RA. Fortunately, satisfactory results can be achieved by adjusting the threshold of synovial fluid biomarkers.

Limited value of serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection

Background

Diagnosing chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is challenging. No single biomarker can accurately recognize PJI preoperatively in a timely manner. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of the serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in aiding the diagnosis of chronic PJI.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 158 patients who had undergone revision arthroplasty (104 with aseptic mechanic failure and 54 with chronic PJI) from July 2011 to July 2020. Univariate analysis followed by multivariate logistic regression was applied to compare NLR, C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation ratio (ESR) between the two groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the diagnostic performance of NLR alone and in combination with CRP and ESR.

Results

NLR, CRP, and ESR were significantly higher in patients with chronic PJI than in the aseptic revision group (p < 0.05). ROC curve analysis revealed that NLR had a sensitivity of 57.41% and a specificity of 77.88% with an optimal threshold of 2.56. The optimal threshold for CRP and ESR was 7.00 mg/L (sensitivity 62.50% and specificity 83.12%) and 43 mm/h (sensitivity 59.38% and specificity 80.52%), respectively. The combined diagnostic value of NLR with CRP and ESR was shown to have no additional diagnostic value in predicting chronic PJI.

Conclusion

Compared with traditional inflammatory biomarkers (ESR and CRP), the value of serum NLR alone or combined with CRP and ESR for diagnosing chronic PJI is limited.

Level of evidence

Level 3.

Combined serum and synovial C-reactive protein tests: a valuable adjunct to the diagnosis of chronic prosthetic joint infection

Background

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), especially chronic PJI, is very confusing and challenging. The value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in infectious diseases has been recognized, but the diagnostic value of CRP in chronic PJI is unknown. Our aim was to investigate the diagnostic value of synovial CRP in chronic PJI and to explore the role of combined serum and synovial CRP in distinguishing chronic PJI from aseptic failure after knee and hip arthroplasties.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to have a revision surgery for chronic PJI or aseptic loosening from January 2019 to December 2020, in which synovial CRP was additionally measured along with routine preoperative diagnostic serum ((ESR, CRP) and synovial (PMN%) biomarkers. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed for each biomarker to determine diagnostic efficacy.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the infection (n = 39) and aseptic (n = 58) groups, including 61 hips and 36 knees. The synovial CRP levels were significantly higher in the infection group than in the aseptic group (median: 9.93 mg/l vs 3.58 mg/l; p < .001). The optimal cut-off value for detecting chronic PJI of Synovial fluid (SF) CRP was of 7.26 mg/l with a sensitivity of 84.62%, a specificity of 93.10%. The combined model I (Serum CRP > 10.2 mg/l OR SF CRP > 7.26 mg/l) had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.67%, and a sensitivity of 97.44%. The combined model II (Serum CRP > 10.2 mg/l AND Synovial CRP > 7.26 mg/l) led to a specificity of 1, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that the combination of serum and synovial CRP can be used as an adjunct to the diagnosis of chronic PJI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04545-6.