SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING

V. Prasad; E. Mughal; T. Worthington; D.J. Dunlop; R.B.C. Treacy; P.A. Lambert

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Current issue

SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING

V. Prasad
E. Mughal
T. Worthington
D.J. Dunlop
R.B.C. Treacy
P.A. Lambert

SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING

Prasad V, Mughal E, Worthington T, Dunlop D, Treacy R, Lambert P. SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING. Orthop Procs. 2005;87-B(SUPP_III):228-228. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Prasad, V., et al. “SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 87-B, no. SUPP_III, 2005, pp. 228-228., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Prasad, V., Mughal, E., Worthington, T., Dunlop, D., Treacy, R., & Lambert, P. (2005). SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), 228-228. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Prasad, V., Mughal, E., Worthington, T., Dunlop, D., Treacy, R. and Lambert, P. (2005) “SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), pp. 228-228. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Prasad, V., E. Mughal, T. Worthington, D.J. Dunlop, R.B.C. Treacy, and P.A. Lambert. “SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 87-B, no. SUPP_III (2005): 228-228. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Prasad V, Mughal E, Worthington T, Dunlop D, Treacy R, Lambert P. SEROLOGICAL TEST USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SEPTIC AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING. Orthop Procs. 2005 Sep 1;87-B(SUPP_III):228-228. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870228

Copy to clipboard

Mendeley

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Introduction: We have investigated the accuracy of a serological marker to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening of Total Hip Replacements (THR). We present the preliminary results of our on-going prospective study.

Methods: After obtaining Ethical Committee approval, 46 patients were collected in 3 groups; “control” primary THR, revision THR for aseptic loosening, and revision THR for infection. Serum IgG responses to an exocellular bacterial antigen (Lipid S) were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results: Our results show that the test can accurately differentiate between the patients with infected joint replacements and the control group. The test, to date, has a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 100%.

Discussion and Conclusion: This simple and cheap test can reliably assist in the accurate evaluation of a painful hip arthroplasty, and planning for revision surgery. It will also be useful in the management of patients in whom the microbiology results are either negative or based on a single isolate of an organism, which may be either a contaminant or a possible pathogen. This, in turn, would have implications on financial costs and the optimum use of available resources.

Correspondence should be addressed to Carlos Widgerowitz, Honorary Secretary BORS, Division of Surgery and Oncology, Section of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Tort Centre, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland.