Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).MethodsA systematic search and screening of relevant studies was performed in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) or keywords: “arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint”, “infection or infectious or infected”, and “D-dimer or serum D-dimer or plasma D-dimer or fibrin degradation products”. Data were subsequently analysed and processed using Meta-Disc.ResultsSeven studies with 1285 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.79), 0.69 (95% CI 0.66–0.72), 3.01 (95% CI 1.84–4.93), 0.32 (95% CI 0.19–0.53), and 10.20 (95% CI 3.63–28.64), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the use of serum D-dimer had better sensitivity and specificity than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI.ConclusionsSerum D-dimer was shown to have a better diagnostic value than plasma D-dimer for the diagnosis of PJI. Further research is required for clarification.
Highlights
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenge for clinicians due to the lack of a gold standard method [1]
Search strategy We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles that were published on the diagnostic use of D-dimer in detecting PJI
Characteristics of the eligible studies and quality of the included studies A total of 1285 hip and knee cases were included in the meta-analysis
Summary
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenge for clinicians due to the lack of a gold standard method [1]. The key to the successful management of PJI. Preoperative diagnoses are a preliminary screening tool of suspected infection cases in the early stages and provide valuable information on further diagnostic procedures or help to rule out infection. Systemic inflammatory markers and synovial fluid biomarkers have. Arthroplasty or joint prosthesis or 14,141/16,517/18,358 joint replacement or periprosthetic joint or prosthetic joint #2. Infection or infectious or infected 202,428/206,267/281,637 #3. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of D-dimer in detecting periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
