Commercial Synovial Antibody Testing is No Better Than Traditional Culture in Identification of Pathogen(s) Causing Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Published:December 27, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.12.029

      Abstract

      Background

      Identification of infective organism causing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is crucial to tailor the best combination of surgical and antimicrobial treatment. Traditional culture, with all its limitations, has been utilized for this purpose. A synovial fluid antibody assay against some common pathogens has been introduced by a commercial entity recently. This study aimed to determine if the antibody testing could be used as a proxy to traditional culture, and whether it provided additional information, in the setting of PJI.

      Methods

      A retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent revision total hip and knee arthroplasty between January 2019 and 2020. Aspirated synovial fluid was sent for analyses including the commercial antibody testing. All patients had samples harvested for culture per standard of care. Results of the antibody testing and culture, in terms of concordance, were compared. Receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden’s criterion were used to compare the 2 methods.

      Results

      A total of 419 patients were included. Using the International Consensus Meeting criteria as reference standard for PJI, antibody testing had a sensitivity and specificity of 40.5% and 93.4%, respectively. There were 59.5% false negative results with antibody testing compared with 50% for culture. Of the 12 patients who had positive results in both tests, 5 (41.7%) had discordant pathogens identified in each test.

      Conclusion

      Synovial fluid antibody testing does not provide clinical benefit when compared to traditional cultures for PJI diagnosis. The antibody testing had a low sensitivity and a high rate of discordance with culture, when both tests were positive.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kurtz S.M.
        • Lau E.
        • Watson H.
        • Schmier J.K.
        • Parvizi J.
        Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States.
        J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27: 61-65.e1https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022
        • Kurtz S.
        • Ong K.
        • Lau E.
        • Mowat F.
        • Halpern M.
        Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 780-785https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
        • Corvec S.
        • Portillo M.E.
        • Pasticci B.M.
        • Borens O.
        • Trampuz A.
        Epidemiology and new developments in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.
        Int J Artif Organs. 2012; 35: 923-934https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000168
        • Moran E.
        • Byren I.
        • Atkins B.L.
        The diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infections.
        J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010; 65: iii45-iii54https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq305
        • Trampuz A.
        • Steinrücken J.
        • Clauss M.
        • Bizzini A.
        • Furustrand U.
        • Uçkay I.
        • et al.
        [New methods for the diagnosis of implant-associated infections].
        Rev Med Suisse. 2010; 6: 731-734
        • Jun Y.
        • Jianghua L.
        Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection using polymerase chain reaction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2018; 19: 555-565https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2018.014
        • Costerton J.W.
        • Post J.C.
        • Ehrlich G.D.
        • Hu F.Z.
        • Kreft R.
        • Nistico L.
        • et al.
        New methods for the detection of orthopedic and other biofilm infections.
        FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011; 61: 133-140https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00766.x
        • Dora C.
        • Altwegg M.
        • Gerber C.
        • Böttger E.C.
        • Zbinden R.
        Evaluation of conventional microbiological procedures and molecular genetic techniques for diagnosis of infections in patients with implanted orthopedic devices.
        J Clin Microbiol. 2008; 46: 824-825https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01227-07
        • Kildow B.J.
        • Ryan S.P.
        • Danilkowicz R.
        • Lazarides A.L.
        • Vovos T.J.
        • Bolognesi M.P.
        • et al.
        Commercially available polymerase chain reaction has minimal utility in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.
        Orthopedics. 2020; 43: 333-338https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20200923-01
        • Lausmann C.
        • Kolle K.N.
        • Citak M.
        • Abdelaziz H.
        • Schulmeyer J.
        • Delgado G.D.
        • et al.
        How reliable is the next generation of multiplex-PCR for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection compared to the MSIS criteria? Still missing the ideal test.
        HIP Int. 2020; 30: 72-77https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020938576
        • Harro J.M.
        • Shirtliff M.E.
        • Arnold W.
        • Kofonow J.M.
        • Dammling C.
        • Achermann Y.
        • et al.
        Development of a novel and rapid antibody-based diagnostic for chronic Staphylococcus aureus infections based on biofilm antigens.
        J Clin Microbiol. 2020; 58: 1-12https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01414-19
      1. ([accessed 26.10.20])
        • Parvizi J.
        • Tan T.L.
        • Goswami K.
        • Higuera C.
        • Della Valle C.
        • Chen A.F.
        • et al.
        The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 1309-1314.e2https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078
        • Shohat N.
        • Bauer T.
        • Buttaro M.
        • Budhiparama N.
        • Cashman J.
        • Della Valle C.J.
        • et al.
        Hip and knee section, what is the definition of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee and the hip? Can the same criteria be used for both joints?: proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections.
        J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: S325-S327https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.045
        • Youden W.J.
        Index for rating diagnostic tests.
        Cancer. 1950; 3: 32-35https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3
        • Esteban J.
        • Sorlí L.
        • Alentorn-Geli E.
        • Puig L.
        • Horcajada J.P.
        Conventional and molecular diagnostic strategies for prosthetic joint infections.
        Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2014; 14: 83-96https://doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2014.861327
        • Gomez-Urena E.O.
        • Tande A.J.
        • Osmon D.R.
        • Berbari E.F.
        Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection: cultures, biomarker and criteria.
        Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017; 31: 219-235https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2017.01.008
        • Thoendel M.J.
        • Jeraldo P.R.
        • Greenwood-Quaintance K.E.
        • Yao J.Z.
        • Chia N.
        • Hanssen A.D.
        • et al.
        Identification of prosthetic joint infection pathogens using a shotgun metagenomics approach.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 67: 1333-1338https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy303
        • Tarabichi M.
        • Shohat N.
        • Goswami K.
        • Alvand A.
        • Silibovsky R.
        • Belden K.
        • et al.
        Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the potential of next-generation sequencing.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100: 147-154https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.00434
        • Morgenstern C.
        • Cabric S.
        • Perka C.
        • Trampuz A.
        • Renz N.
        Synovial fluid multiplex PCR is superior to culture for detection of low-virulent pathogens causing periprosthetic joint infection.
        Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 90: 115-119https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.10.016
        • Marmor S.
        • Bauer T.
        • Desplaces N.
        • Heym B.
        • Roux A.L.
        • Sol O.
        • et al.
        Multiplex antibody detection for noninvasive genus-level diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection.
        J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54: 1065-1073https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02885-15