Usefulness of serum D-dimer and platelet count to mean platelet volume ratio to rule out chronic periprosthetic joint infection

Finding the Optimal Screening Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Serological markers are often used as screening tools to avoid unnecessary joint aspiration in cases with a low probability of infection. This study aimed to determine the utility of standard-of-care serological tests as a screening tool for PJI in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 502 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty between May 2017 and August 2021. A PJI was defined using a modified definition of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. There were 82 patients undergoing reimplantation who were excluded. Additionally, 8 patients who had an inconclusive International Consensus Meeting score were also excluded. Of the 412 included patients, 317 (76.9%) underwent revision for aseptic failure, and 95 (23.1%) had PJI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the diagnostic utility of each serological test. A pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction was performed to determine whether the differences in areas under the curve (AUCs) between the tests were significant. Additional analyses were performed to find the threshold for each test that offered 100% sensitivity, allowing it to be the optimal screening test.

RESULTS

All 4 serological markers, D-dimer (AUC 0.860, sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 81.7%), CRP (AUC 0.862, sensitivity 90.4%, specificity 70.0%), ESR (AUC 0.833, sensitivity 73.9%, specificity 85.2%), and fibrinogen (AUC 0.798, sensitivity 74.7%, specificity 75.4%), demonstrated comparable accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI (all P > .05). When maximizing sensitivity to 100%, D-dimer demonstrated the highest specificity (AUC 0.860, specificity 40.2%), outperforming ESR (AUC 0.833, specificity 3.3%), fibrinogen (AUC 0.798, specificity 2.3%), and CRP (AUC 0.862, specificity 0%). A plasma D-dimer level of ≥ 244 ng/mL was identified as the optimal cutoff for use as a screening test.

CONCLUSIONS

Although plasma D-dimer demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy as CRP, ESR, and fibrinogen, it outperformed all 3 aforementioned serological markers when used as a screening test for PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Serum and Synovial Markers in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip, Knee, and Shoulder: An Algorithmic Approach

➤ No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).➤ Physicians rely on a combination of serological tests, synovial markers, and clinical findings plus clinical judgment to help to guide preoperative decision-making.➤ Several organizations have proposed criteria for the diagnosis of hip or knee PJI on which we now rely.➤ Given that shoulder arthroplasty has only recently become popular, it is possible that a shoulder-specific definition of PJI will be introduced in the coming years.➤ Although a number of serum and synovial markers have demonstrated high accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI of the hip and knee, further research is needed in order to identify markers that may be more suitable for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI and for the potential development and identification of specific serological tests as screening tools for PJI.

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.

A Pilot Observational Study Evaluating the Diagnostic Capacity of Rotational Thromboelastometry in Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are associated with altered hemostatic dynamics; therefore, coagulation laboratory methods such as rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) may be valuable in their diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic role of ROTEM in PJI.

METHODS

A diagnostic study was conducted including 65 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty due to PJI (30 patients) or aseptic loosening (35 patients). Preoperative laboratory evaluation included conventional coagulation studies, inflammatory markers, and ROTEM analysis. These parameters were compared between patients with PJI and patients with aseptic loosening.

RESULTS

Several ROTEM parameters differed in the patients with PJI, indicating a higher coagulation potential associated with PJI. Specifically, the development of PJI was associated with higher EXTEM maximum clot firmness (MCF) (odds ratio [OR], 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 1.20]; p = 0.001). Among the ROTEM parameters, EXTEM MCF was found to have the highest diagnostic accuracy for PJI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.850; sensitivity, 76.6%; specificity, 91.4%), which was comparable with C-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.22) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (p = 0.65), but higher than D-dimer (p = 0.037). Moreover, the combined diagnostic accuracy of elevated EXTEM MCF and CRP was improved compared with CRP alone (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that ROTEM analysis might be helpful for the detection of the hemostatic derangements that are associated with the development of PJI. However, because of the small size of this pilot study, further research is needed to investigate the value of incorporating viscoelastic studies in diagnostic scores for PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Plasma D-Dimer Is a Promising Marker to Guide Timing of Reimplantation: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the preferred surgical treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection. Currently, there is no single reliable marker to determine the optimal timing for reimplantation. The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the diagnostic utility of plasma D-dimer and other serological markers in predicting successful control of infection following reimplantation.

METHODS

This study enrolled 136 patients undergoing reimplantation arthroplasty between November 2016 and December 2020. Strict inclusion criteria were applied including the need for a two-week "antibiotic holiday" prior to reimplantation. A total of 114 patients were included in the final analysis. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. Treatment success was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome-Reporting Tool. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the prognostic accuracy of each biomarker in predicting failure following reimplantation at a minimum 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Treatment failure occurred in 33 patients (28.9%) at a mean follow-up of 3.2 years (range, 1.0 to 5.7). Median plasma D-dimer was significantly higher in the treatment failure group (1,604 versus 631 ng/mL, P < .001), whereas median CRP, ESR, and fibrinogen were not significantly different between the success and failure groups. Plasma D-dimer demonstrated the best diagnostic utility (area under the curve [AUC] 0.724, sensitivity 51.5%, specificity 92.6%), outperforming ESR (AUC 0.565, sensitivity 93.3%, specificity 22.5%), CRP (AUC 0.541, sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 26.3%), and fibrinogen (AUC 0.485, sensitivity 30.4%, specificity 80.0%). Plasma D-dimer level of ≥1,604 ng/mL was identified as the optimal cutoff that predicted failure following reimplantation.

CONCLUSION

Plasma D-dimer was superior to serum ESR, CRP, and fibrinogen in predicting failure after the second stage of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. Based on the findings of this prospective study, plasma D-dimer may be a promising marker in assessing the control of infection in patients undergoing reimplantation surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Utility of Biomarkers in 2023

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a rare yet devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Early and accurate diagnosis of PJI is paramount in order to maximize the chances of successful treatment. However, we are yet to identify a single "gold standard" test for the diagnosis of PJI. As a result, the diagnosis of PJI is often challenging. Currently, the 2018 ICM definition of PJI is the only validated diagnostic criteria available. This article will review the importance of serum and synovial biomarkers in the diagnosis of PJI. In addition, it will provide a brief overview of the emerging modalities for the identification of infections in this setting.

Plasma D-Dimer Is Noninferior to Serum C-Reactive Protein in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Serological markers are often used as screening tools in the workup of patients with suspected PJI. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of plasma D-dimer for PJI in a variety of clinical scenarios.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 502 patients undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty. PJI was defined per a modified version of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria. Plasma D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the utility of each biomarker in the diagnosis of PJI. Pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction was performed to determine whether the differences in areas under the curve (AUCs) between the markers were significant.

RESULTS

Of the 412 patients included, 317 (76.9%) did not have an infection (aseptic group) and 95 (23.1%) had an infection (PJI group). All 4 serological markers, D-dimer (AUC, 0.860; sensitivity, 81.3%; specificity, 81.7%), CRP (AUC, 0.862; sensitivity, 90.4%; specificity, 70.0%), ESR (AUC, 0.833; sensitivity, 73.9%; specificity, 85.2%), and fibrinogen (AUC, 0.798; sensitivity, 74.7%; specificity, 75.4%), demonstrated comparable accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI (all p > 0.05). When examining the performance of the different inflammatory markers in diagnosing infection caused by indolent organisms, D-dimer demonstrated the highest sensitivity at 93.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that plasma D-dimer was noninferior to serum CRP and ESR in the diagnosis of PJI and may be a useful adjunct when screening patients undergoing revision total joint arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.