Diagnostic methodology in labelled leukocyte scan for prosthetic / non-prosthetic osteoarticular infection: Visual or semi-quantitative analysis? One- or two-day protocol?
Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2021;
41:S2253-654X(20)30190-6. [PMID:
34167930 DOI:
10.1016/j.remn.2020.09.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2020] [Revised: 09/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
As scarce literature on the topic is available, we aimed to compare diagnostic utility of semi-quantitative versus visual analysis in labelled white blood cell scintigraphy (WBCS) for osteoarticular infection. One-day and two-day protocols were assessed, particularly in orthopaedic devices.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Prospective study of 79 consecutive patients with suspected osteoarticular infection. In all patients, WBCS were performed at 30min, 4h, 8h and 24h. Images were analysed by grouping in two protocols: one-day-protocol (experts evaluated 30min, 4h and 8h planar images) and two-day-protocol (experts evaluated 30min, 4h and 24h planar images). Planar images were interpreted qualitative and semiquantitatively and also were compared grouping patients with and without orthopaedic devices. To find which cut-off value of the percentage variation could predict of osteoarticular infection, multiple cut-off values were calculated in both protocols from the Youden index. Three blinded readers analysed the images.
RESULTS
Comparing final diagnosis visual analysis of the one-day-protocol provided better results with sensitivity of 95.5%, specificity of 93% and diagnostic accuracy of 93.7% (P<.01) than the two-day-protocol with values of 86.4%, 94.7% and 92.4%, respectively (P<.01). For semi-quantitative analysis, the one-day-protocol also obtained better results with sensitivity of 72.7%, specificity of 78.9% and accuracy of 77.2% (P<.01) than two-day-protocol (no significant results; P=.14), especially in the group of patients with orthopaedic devices (sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 79.5% and accuracy of 82.7%; P<.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Most accurate approach in the diagnosis of osteoarticular infection corresponded to visual analysis in one-day-protocol that showed greater sensitivity and specificity than semi-quantitative analysis. Semi-quantitative analysis only could be useful when visual analysis is doubtful. In patients with joint prostheses, an increase in percentage variation above 9% obtained maximum sensitivity and negative predictive value.
Collapse