4.3 Article

Synovial fluid multiplex PCR is superior to culture for detection of low-virulent pathogens causing periprosthetic joint infection

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.10.016

关键词

PCR; Arthroplasty; Synovial fluid; Low-virulent pathogen; Periprosthetic joint infection

资金

  1. PRO IMPLANT Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Analysis of joint aspirate is the standard preoperative investigation for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We compared the diagnostic performance of culture and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of synovial fluid for diagnosis of PJI. Patients and Methods: Patients in whom aspiration of the prosthetic hip or knee joint was performed before revision arthroplasty were prospectively included. The performance of synovial fluid culture and multiplex PCR was compared by McNemar's chi-squared test. Results: A total of 142 patients were included, 82 with knee and 60 with hip prosthesis. PJI was diagnosed in 77 patients (54%) and aseptic failure in 65 patients (46%). The sensitivity of synovial fluid culture and PCR was 52% and 60%, respectively, showing concordant results in 116 patients (82%). In patients with PJI, PCR missed 6 high virulent pathogens (S. aureus, streptococci, E. faecalis, E. coli) which grew in synovial fluid culture, whereas synovial fluid culture missed 12 pathogens detected by multiplex PCR, predominantly low-virulent pathogens (Cutibacterium acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci). In patients with aseptic failure, PCR detected 6 low-virulent organisms (predominantly C. acnes). Conclusion: While the overall performance of synovial fluid PCR was comparable to culture, PCR was superior for detection of low-virulent bacteria such as Cutibacterium spp. and coagulase-negative staphylococci. In addition, synovial fluid culture required several days for growth, whereas multiplex PCR provided results within 5 hours in an automated manner. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据