Abstract
BackgroundWe herein compared the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS), bacterial culture, and serological biomarkers to detect periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after joint replacement.MethodsAccording to the diagnostic criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society, 35 patients who underwent joint revision surgery were divided into infection (15 cases) and non-infection (20 cases) groups, and were routinely examined preoperatively for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and D-dimer levels. All patients underwent arthrocentesis preoperatively. Synovial fluid was used for white blood cell count, white blood cell classification, bacterial culture, and NGS. Furthermore, we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for ESR, CRP, PCT, IL-6, and D-dimer. Data were assessed by comparing diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsFourteen patients showed positive results by NGS and seven showed positive bacterial culture results in the infection group; further, 18 showed negative results by NGS in the non-infection group. The AUC of ESR, D-dimer, CRP, IL-6, and PCT was 0.667, 0.572, 0.827, 0.767, and 0.808, respectively. The accuracy of NGS, bacterial culture, CRP, IL-6, and PCT was 0.91, 0.74, 0.77, 0.74, and 0.83, respectively. When comparing NGS with CRP, IL-6, PCT, and bacterial culture, differences in overall test results and those in sensitivity were statistically significant, and compared with CRP, differences in specificity were also statistically significant. In comparison with IL-6, PCT, and bacterial culture, the specificity of NGS was statistically insignificant.ConclusionsOur results indicated that NGS had higher accuracy and sensitivity than the bacterial culture method and commonly used serological biomarkers for diagnosing PJI.
Highlights
We compared the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS), bacterial culture, and serological biomarkers to detect periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after joint replacement
Due to complicated reasons such as the existence of biofilms on the surface of artificial joints, inconsistent and nonoptimal processes for sampling pathogenic bacteria, small number of bacteria, and complex symbiotic relationship involving bacteria, pathogens cannot be detected in approximately 50% patients with PJI
Patients diagnosed with PJI and aseptic loosening, as defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria [18], were included
Summary
We compared the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS), bacterial culture, and serological biomarkers to detect periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after joint replacement. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common cause of total knee arthroplasty failure (20.4%) [1] and one of the main reasons for revision after total knee arthroplasty (12.8%) [2]. Such a revision usually demands multiple surgical interventions and has a higher incidence of complications. The mortality rate of patients with PJI undergoing arthroplasty is five times that of patients undergoing aseptic arthroplasty [3, 4]. Compared with culture-positive cases, the rate of infection recurrence is 4–5 times higher in culture-negative cases [5]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.