0
Commentary and Perspective   |    
A Simple, Inexpensive, One-Minute Tool to Help Diagnose Periprosthetic InfectionCommentary on an article by Javad Parvizi, MD, FRCS, et al.: “Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Utility of a Simple Yet Unappreciated Enzyme”
Pierce E. Scranton, Jr., MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: The author did not receive payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. He, or his institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The author has not had any other relationships, or engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.

  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

This article was chosen to appear electronically on November 23, 2011, before publication of the final, definitive version.

Copyright © 2011 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011 Dec 21;93(24):e152 1-2. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01158
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
Total hip or knee joint replacement has been one of the great gifts of medicine to mankind. Millions of individuals who would otherwise spend the remainder of their life inactive, limping painfully with a stick or crutches or wheelchair-bound, can now live relatively painless, enjoyable, productive lives. However, the physical and emotional devastation that is wreaked if an infection involving the total joint replacement occurs is almost immeasurable1. Morbidity is substantial and may be permanent. In addition, if revision arthroplasty is required, the mortality rate is elevated and the economic cost to the hospital averages almost four times that of a primary joint replacement2.
On the average, a total hip or knee replacement endures about one million cycles of use per year. As a result, these mechanical devices would be expected to eventually loosen and/or wear out. This gradual process may take one or more decades. Bone cement may loosen, and high-density polyethylene spacers may wear down to create pseudo-laxity of the ligaments. The polyethylene wear-particle debris will also excite an erosive inflammatory reaction that further exacerbates the wear process. A treating surgeon then faces a dilemma—is the etiology of the resulting painful, loose total joint replacement due to the natural mechanical wear process, or is it due to an infection? How should the joint revision process proceed? What steps are appropriate during the preoperative workup so that the surgeon does not inappropriately revise an infected joint and thus create another infected joint? An algorithm is presented by Dr. Parvizi to help in this decision-making process.
In Dr. Parvizi's superb article, some of the decision-making is straightforward. According to the criteria used at the authors’ institution, a prosthetic joint is regarded as infected if: (1) there is an open wound or sinus tract; (2) purulence is encountered in the joint; (3) preoperative or intraoperative tissue or synovial fluid cultures are positive; or (4) at least three of the following four markers in the serum or aspirated synovial fluid are elevated: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) > 30 mm/hr, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level > 10 mg/L, synovial white blood-cell (WBC) count > 1700 cells/μL, and synovial polymorphonuclear (PMN) percentage (differential) > 64%.
In spite of these straightforward guidelines, a substantial group of patients still falls in a “gray area” in which diagnosis of the etiology of a painful, loose prosthetic joint remains indeterminate. Patients with active autoimmune disease, patients being treated with corticosteroids, and patients who have previously been treated with antibiotics for an unrelated condition (e.g., urinary tract infection, pneumonia, or an abscessed tooth) may all have a periprosthetic joint infection and yet meet none of the criteria spelled out by Dr. Parvizi. For instance, if a patient was recently treated with oral antibiotics when an abscessed molar was extracted, attempts to culture bacteria from the joint aspirate may fail. If a patient with asthma or rheumatoid arthritis is being treated with prednisone, the ESR value may remain in the normal range.
A surgeon performing revision total joint arthroplasty must always be alert to the possibility that unrecognized infection is present. Frozen sections or a “stat” (rush) Gram stain are frequently employed intraoperatively to help in the decision-making process, but this adds time and cost to the procedure. (A technetium-99 scan is expensive and will not help to determine the etiology of loosening, as the result will be positive regardless of whether the prosthesis is loose because of mechanical factors or infection.) The leukocyte esterase strip test proposed by Dr. Parvizi is inexpensive and highly accurate, and it can yield a result within one to two minutes. The test strips are so inexpensive that a three-pack can be ordered for less than $2.00. A ++ test reading is ∼80% sensitive and 100% specific, and a negative or trace reading has a negative predictive value of >97%. Thus, if the preoperative workup is equivocal and the reading on a leukocyte esterase strip test performed intraoperatively is negative or trace, it is highly likely that the surgeon's problem will revolve solely around the technical issues of revision arthroplasty. A result of ++ on the leukocyte esterase test, on the other hand, would mean that it is highly probable that infection is present, resulting in an entirely different treatment algorithm.
As pointed out by Dr. Parvizi, further confirmation of this diagnostic test is needed. Are there clinical situations that could lead to false positives or false negatives? What should the surgeon do when faced with a + reading rather than a ++ reading? Nevertheless, this article has provided us with a great tool that is both simple and inexpensive and can assist very quickly with intraoperative decisions during revision arthroplasty.
Whitehouse  JD;  Friedman  ND;  Kirkland  KB;  Richardson  WJ;  Sexton  DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.  2002;23:183-9. [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Sculco  TP. The economic impact of infected total joint arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect.  1993;42:349-51. [PubMed]
 

Submit a comment

References

Whitehouse  JD;  Friedman  ND;  Kirkland  KB;  Richardson  WJ;  Sexton  DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.  2002;23:183-9. [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Sculco  TP. The economic impact of infected total joint arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect.  1993;42:349-51. [PubMed]
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe





David r. Cooper, M.D.
Posted on January 04, 2012
Periprosthetic Infection in Workers Compensation Settings
The Knee Center

Making the correct diagnosis of periprosthetic infection is extremely important when working up complaints of pain in the patient with a joint replacement. I have seen a number of workers compensation patients who continue to complain of pain following a knee replacement who have multiple revision procedures when all the diagnostic studies are negative. This is because they do not want to go back to work and continually complain of pain, and even have surgery to avoid working. Thus, in the workup of any patient with pain following a replacement, secondary gain must be taken into account when deciding upon a future course of action. This simple test should be added and taken into account in order to prevent unnecessary and costly surgery that does nothing for the patient, and only serves to inflame the insurance companies that wind up paying orthopaedic surgeons for worthless functional outcomes.

Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
12/31/2013
SC - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
04/02/2014
LA - Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport
03/26/2014
MA - Boston University Orthopedic Surgical Associates