PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

The impact of sonication cultures when the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection is inconclusive.

  • Taiana Cunha Ribeiro,
  • Emerson Kiyoshi Honda,
  • Daniel Daniachi,
  • Ricardo de Paula Leite Cury,
  • Cely Barreto da Silva,
  • Giselle Burlamaqui Klautau,
  • Mauro Jose Salles

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252322
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 7
p. e0252322

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundIn the absence of a gold standard criterion for diagnosing prosthetic joint infections (PJI), sonication of the removed implant may provide superior microbiological identification to synovial fluid and peri-implant tissue cultures. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the role of sonication culture compared to tissue cultures for diagnosing PJI, using different consensus and international guidelines for PJI definition.MethodsData of 146 patients undergoing removal of hip or knee arthroplasties between 2010 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The International Consensus Meeting (ICM-2018), Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and a modified clinical criterion, were used to compare the performance of microbiological tests. McNemar´s test and proportion comparison were employed to calculate p-value.ResultsOverall, 56% (82/146) were diagnosed with PJI using the clinical criteria. Out of these cases, 57% (47/82) tested positive on tissue culture and 93% (76/82) on sonication culture. Applying this clinical criterion, the sensitivity of sonication fluid and tissue cultures was 92.7% (95% CI: 87.1%- 98.3%) and 57.3% (95% CI: 46.6%-68.0%) (pConclusionsIn a context where diagnostic criteria available have shortcomings and tissue cultures remain the gold standard, sonication cultures can aid PJI diagnosis, especially when diagnostic criteria are inconclusive due to some important missing data (joint puncture, histology).