Aims

Serum inflammatory parameters are widely used to aid in diagnosing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Due to their limited performances in the literature, novel and more accurate biomarkers are needed. Serum albumin-to-globulin ratio (AGR) and serum CRP-to-albumin ratio (CAR) have previously been proposed as potential new parameters, but results were mixed. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AGR and CAR in diagnosing PJI and to compare them to the established and widely used marker CRP.

Aims. This study evaluated the definitions developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013, for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. In this single-centre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, patients with an indicated revision surgery after a total hip or knee arthroplasty were included between 2015 and 2020. A standardized diagnostic workup was performed, identifying the components of the EBJIS, ICM, and IDSA criteria in each patient. Results. Of 206 included patients, 101 (49%) were diagnosed with PJI with the EBJIS definition. IDSA and ICM diagnosed 99 (48%) and 86 (42%) as infected, respectively. A total of 84 cases (41%) had an infection based on all three criteria. In 15 cases (n = 15/206; 7%), PJI was present when applying only the IDSA and EBJIS criteria. No infection was detected by one definition alone. Inconclusive diagnoses occurred more frequently with the ICM criteria (n = 30/206; 15%) compared to EBJIS (likely infections: n = 16/206; 8%) (p = 0.029). A better preoperative performance of the EBJIS definition was seen compared with the ICM and IDSA definitions (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The novel EBJIS definition identified all PJIs diagnosed by any other criteria. Use of the EBJIS definition significantly reduced the number of uncertain diagnoses, allowing easier clinical decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):608–618

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547