Utility of Diagnostic Tests Before Reimplantation in Patients Undergoing 2-Stage Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is a complication that affects approximately 2-3% of patients. The management of this issue is complicated and expensive for both the patients and the healthcare system. Multiple management options are available including antibiotic suppressive therapy, surgical management, and salvage procedures. Surgical management is considered a popular option for treating PJI, with multiple available surgical techniques, including single-stage revision arthroplasty and two-stage revision arthroplasty among others. Two-stage revision has been considered the gold standard for treating PJI. This method consists of two surgical procedures with a time interval in between, the first procedure aims to eradicate the infection along with implanting either a static or a mobile spacer, while the second intervention aims to remove the spacer and implant a new prothesis. During the interval period the patient is closely monitored through a handful of laboratory tests and clinical signs that help in assessing the optimal time of undertaking the second stage. However, in recent years, the single-stage method has gained much attention for its comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Contrary to the two-stage method, the single-stage approach consists only of one procedure in which the old infected prosthesis is removed and a new one is implanted. Many articles have compared the two methods over the years but have not agreed on a particular approach to be more potent in eliminating infection and providing better outcomes. Plenty of questions are yet to be answered regarding the two methods, including the superior type of spacer, interim period duration, and single-stage revision inclusion criteria. We herein, aim to address these issues, highlighting recent advances in managing this morbid complication and discussing controversial topics in the staged procedures.

Upcoming evidence in clinical practice of two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection

Total joint arthroplasty is the recommended treatment for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis, as it reduces disability and pain and restores joint function. However, prosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of this procedure, with the two-stage exchange being the most common treatment method. While there is consensus on diagnosing prosthetic joint infection, there is a lack of agreement on the parameters that can guide the surgeon in performing definitive reimplantation in a two-stage procedure. One approach that has been suggested to improve the accuracy of microbiologic investigations before definitive reimplantation is to observe a holiday period from antibiotic therapy to improve the accuracy of cultures from periprosthetic tissues, but these cultures report some degree of aspecificity. Therefore, several pieces of evidence highlight that performing reimplantation using continuous antibiotic therapy should be considered a safe and effective approach, leading to higher cure rates and a shorter period of disability. Dosage of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ERS) and D-dimer are helpful in diagnosing prosthetic joint infection, but only D-dimer has shown sufficient accuracy in predicting the risk of infection recurrence after a two-stage procedure. Synovial fluid analysis before reimplantation has been shown to be the most accurate in predicting recurrence, and new cutoff values for leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage have shown a useful predictive rule to identify patients at risk of unfavourable outcome. A new scoring system based on a numerical score calculated from the beta coefficient derived through multivariate analysis of D-dimer levels, synovial fluid leukocytes and relative neutrophils percentage has demonstrated high accuracy when it comes to guiding the second step of two-stage procedure. In conclusion, reimplantation may be a suitable option for patients who are on continuous therapy without local symptoms, and with CRP and ERS within the normal range, with low synovial fluid leukocytes (< 952/mL) and a low relative neutrophil percentage (< 52%) and D-dimer below 1100 µg/mL. A numerical score derived from analysing these three parameters can serve as a valuable tool in determining the feasibility of reimplantation in these patients.

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.

Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after hip and knee arthroplasty

Aims

Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated.

Results

Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases.

Conclusion

Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection.

Diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 in multiple diseases: An umbrella review of meta-analyses

Objective

This review aims to conduct a comprehensive study of the diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 (IL-6) for multiple diseases by utilizing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods

We performed a thorough search of Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to April 2023 to gather meta-analyses that investigate the diagnostic accuracy of IL-6. To assess the methodological quality of the studies, we employed the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

Results

We included 34 meta-analyses out of the 3024 articles retrieved from the search. These meta-analyses covered 9 categories of diseases of the International Classification of Diseases-11. Studies rated as "Critically Low" or "Very Low" in the quality assessment process were excluded, resulting in a total of 6 meta-analyses that encompassed sepsis, colorectal cancer, tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE), endometriosis, among others. Among these diseases, IL-6 demonstrated a relatively high diagnostic potential in accurately identifying TPE and endometriosis.

Conclusions

IL-6 exhibited favorable diagnostic accuracy across multiple diseases, suggesting its potential as a reliable diagnostic biomarker in the near future. Substantial evidence supported its high diagnostic accuracy, particularly in the cases of TPE and endometriosis.