Intraoperative frozen section analysis and 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning for diagnosing periprosthetic infection in hip

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.31.001

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Conventional serological, imaging and laboratory diagnosis methods for diagnosing periprosthetic infection are difficult to achieve ideal sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. In particular, the differential diagnosis of septic loosening and aseptic loosening in late stage after prosthetic replacement lacks of commonly accepted diagnostic criteria. The combination of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative diagnostic methods is of great significance in the identifying infection diagnosis and formulating renovation strategy.
OBJECTIVE: To diagnose periprosthetic hip joint infection by combined use of preoperative 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning and intraoperative neutrophil count in frozen section analysis, and to compare with conventional diagnostic tools.
METHODS: Between April 2008 and May 2013, 44 hip revision cases were enrolled. Combined with clinical symptoms and serological examination, 18 cases whose erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein increased were considered as clinically suspected infection group; 26 cases with normal serological examination were considered as clinically suspected aseptic loosening group. 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning was performed in all patients, and combined with intraoperative frozen section analysis. If both results were negative, the diagnosis was aseptic loosening and did one-stage revision surgery; otherwise, periprosthetic infection was detected and two-stage revision surgery was conducted. By postoperative follow-up serological indexes and surgery outcomes, statistics of work curve of subjects was used to evaluate the diagnostic values of 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning and frozen section analysis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In 18 cases of clinically suspected infection group, 16 cases of preoperative 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning and intraoperative frozen section results were positive, so two-stage revision surgeries were performed; 2 cases with negative results received one-stage revision surgery after excluding infection. In 26 cases of clinically suspected aseptic loosening group, 25 cases of preoperative 99Tcm three-phase bone scanning and intraoperative frozen section results were negative, and diagnosed as aseptic loosening, so one-stage revision surgery was performed. One patient affected infection of staphylococcus aureus in one-sample of the three samples in postoperative microbiological pathogen detection, and diagnosed as periprosthetic infection, so one-stage revision surgery was carried out. After combined use of 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning and intraoperative frozen section analysis, performance curve area increased from 0.906 to 0.972, sensitivity of diagnosis of infection increased from 89% to 94%, specificity of diagnosis of infection increased from 92% to 100%. However, no significant difference was detected in diagnostic methods. These data indicated that adding the method of 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning and intraoperative frozen section analysis technique, on the basis of serological and other conventional diagnostic tools, can differentiate infections from aseptic loosening of hip prosthesis. Negative results of 99Tcm triplephase bone scan showed high correlation between the diagnosis of aseptic loosening of the prosthesis and good diagnostic value to exclude infection. Combining with intraoperative frozen section method has a very good clinical value for the revision surgery.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: prostheses and implants, arthroplasty, replacement, hip, prosthesis-related infections

CLC Number:

R318

Zhang Jiong, Wang Yi, Feng Jian-min, Song Yan-yan, Liu Zhi-hong, He Chuan. Intraoperative frozen section analysis and 99Tcm triplephase bone scanning for diagnosing periprosthetic infection in hip[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(31): 4921-4928.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] Volin SJ, Hinrichs SH, Garvin KL. Two-stage reimplantation of total joint infections: a comparison of resistant and non-resistant organisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(427): 94-100.
[2] Charnley J. A clean-air operating enclosure. Br J Surg. 1964; 51: 202.
[3] Ong KL, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. Prosthetic joint infection risk after total hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:105.
[4] Uckay I, Lubbeke A, Emonet S, et al. Low incidence of haematogenous seeding to total hip and knee prostheses in patients with remote infections. J Infect. 2009;59:337-345.
[5] Dale H, Skråmm I, Løwer HL, et al. Infection after primary hip arthroplasty:a comparison of 3 Norwegian health registers. Acta Orthop. 2011;82, 646-654.
[6] Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary andrevision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89, 780-785.
[7] Iorio R, Robb WJ, Healy WL, et al. Orthopaedic sur-geon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacementin the United States: preparing for an epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90,1598-1605.
[8] Keogh CF, Munk PL, Gee R, et al. Imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:115-120.
[9] Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, et al. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2003; 85-A:27-32.
[10] Berbari E, Mabry T, Tsaras G, et al. Inflammatory blood laboratory levels as markers of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2102.
[11] Roder C, Eggli S, Aebi M, et al.The validity of clinical examination in the diagnosis of loosening of components in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2003;85-B: 37-44.
[12] Peters AM. Localising the cause of undiagnosed fever. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996; 23:239-242.
[13] Itasaka T, Kawai A, Sato T, et al. Diagnosis of infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2001;6:320-326.
[14] Bauer TW, Parvizi J, Kobayashi N, et al. Diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(4): 869-882.
[15] Feldman DS, Lonner JH, Desai P, et al. The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77:1807-1813.
[16] Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ, et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(7):654-663.
[17] Hoenders CSM, Harmsen MC, Van Luyn MJA. The local inflammatory environment and microorganisms in ‘aseptic’ loosening of hip prostheses, review. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2007;86B:291-301.
[18] Smeltzer MS, Nelson CL, Evans RP. Biofilms and aseptic loosening. The role of biofilms in devicerelated infections. In: Shirtliff M, Leid JG, editors. Springer Series on Biofilms, Vol. 3. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008: 57-74.
[19] Atkins BL, Athanasou N, Deeks JJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2932.
[20] Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, O'Connell JX, et al. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81:672.
[21] Choi HR, von Knoch F, Zurakowski D, et al. Can implant retention be recommended for treatment of infected TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:961.
[22] Berbari EF, Marculescu C, Sia I, et al. Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:1113.
[23] Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, et al. Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:471.
[24] Masri BA, Panagiotopoulos KP, Greidanus NV, et al. Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:72.
[25] Ure KJ, Amstutz HC, Nasser S, et al. Direct-exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of infection after total hip replacement. An average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:961.
[26] Meermans G, Haddad FS. Is there a role for tissue biopsy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1410.
[27] Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbar EF, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469:2992.
[28] Schauwecker DS. The scintigraphic diagnosis of osteomyelitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:9-18.
[29] Nagoya S, Kaya M, Sasaki M, et al. Diagnosis of peri-prosthetic infection at the hip using triple-phase bone scintigraphy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90-B: 140-144.
[30] Reinartz P, Mumme T, Hermanns B, et al. Radionuclide imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty: positron-emission tomography versus triple-phase bone scanning. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2005;87-B:465-470.
[31] Trampuz A, Steckelberg J, Osmon D, et al. Advances in the laboratory diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Rev Med Microbiol. 2003; 14: 1-14.
[32] Lonner JH, Desai P, Di Cesare PE, et al. The reliability of analysis on intraoperative frozen sections for identifying active infection during revision hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1996;78:1553-1558.
[33] Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, O’Connell JX, et al. Prospectiv analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1999;81:672-683.
[34] Tsukayama DT, Goldberg VM, Kyle R. Diagnosis and management of infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 1:S75-80.