Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does intraoperative tissue sample enrichment help or hinder the identification of microorganisms in prosthetic joint infection?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Biofilm formation reduces the efficacy of standard microbiological techniques in prosthetic joint infection. This study aimed to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of tissue sample enrichment as a means to increase diagnostic yield.

Methods

Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty surgery between May 2004 and January 2013 had intraoperative tissue samples cultured in standard media as well as enriched in brain heart infusion broth. Patients were separated into infected or non-infected groups according to modified criteria from the Musculoskeletal Infection Society.

Results

A total of 197 revision arthroplasties were included (non-infected, n = 165; proven infection, n = 32). The mean time until revision in non-infected and infected groups was 75.9 and 41.7 months, respectively. The commonest microorganisms cultured were coagulase-negative staphylococci (42.9 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (34.4 %). The sensitivity and specificity of standard tissue culture were 0.25 (CI 0.18–0.33) and 0.98 (CI 0.95–0.99), respectively. Including enrichment culture results increased the sensitivity to 0.45 (CI 0.37–0.54), but decreased specificity to 0.59 (CI 0.52–0.66).

Conclusion

Any potential increase in the sensitivity is far outweighed by the extremely high false-positive rate. Results of tissue samples cultured by enrichment should be used with caution and may lead to a worse outcome if incorrectly interpreted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J (2008) Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 23(7):984–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jamsen E, Varonen M, Huhtala H, Lehto MU, Lumio J, Konttinen YT, Moilanen T (2010) Incidence of prosthetic joint infections after primary knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(1):87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2008) Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop 466(7):1710–1715

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips JE, Crane TP, Noy M, Elliott TS, Grimer RJ (2006) The incidence of deep prosthetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: a 15 year prospective survey. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(7):943–948

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parvizi J, Zmistowksi B, Berbar EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2992–2994

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bauer TW, Parvizi J, Kobayashi N, Krebs V (2006) Current concepts review—diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(4):869–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parvizi J, Adeli B, Zmistowski B, Restrepo C, Greenwald A (2012) Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the current knowledge. AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(14):104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atkins BL, Athanasou N, Deeks JJ, Crook DWM, Simpson H, Peto TEA, Mclardy-Smith P, Berendt AR (1998) Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. J Clin Microbiol 36:2932–2939

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Sharkey P, Aggarwal A, Burnett SJ, Barrack RL (2008) Diagnosis of infected total knee: findings of a multicenter database. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(11):2628–2633

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ, Hanssen AD, Unni KK, Osmon DR, Mandrekar JN, Cockerill FR, Steckelberg JM, Greenleaf JF, Patel R (2007) Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 357(7):654–663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daur AV, Klimak F Jr, Cogo LL, Botão GD, Monteiro CL, Dalla Costa LM (2006) Enrichment methodology to increase the positivity of cultures from body fluids. Braz J Infect Dis 10(6):372–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hughes HC, Newnham R, Athanasou N, Atkins BL, Bejon P, Bowler IC (2011) Microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: a prospective evaluation of four bacterial culture media in the routine laboratory. Clin Microbiol Infect 17(10):1528–1530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Velay A, Schramm F, Gaudias J, Jaulhac B, Riegel P (2010) Culture with BACTEC Peds Plus bottle compared with conventional media for the detection of bacteria in tissue samples from orthopedic surgery. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 68(1):83–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trampuz A, Steckelberg JM, Osmon DR, Cockerill FR, Hanssen AD, Patel R (2003) Advances in the laboratory diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Rev Clin Microbiol 14:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  15. http://www.oxoid.com/UK/blue/prod_detail/prod_detail.asp?pr=CM1135&c. Accessed 1 Sept 2014

  16. Larsen LH, Lange J, Xu Y, Schonheyder HC (2012) Optimizing culture methods for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: a summary of modifications and improvements reported since 1995. J Med Microbiol 61(3):309–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma D, Douglas J, Coulter C, Weinrauch P, Crawford R (2008) Microbiology of infected arthroplasty: implications for empiric peri-operative antibiotics. J Orthop Surg 16(3):339–342

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nickinson RSJ, Board TN, Gambhir AK, Porter ML, Kay PR (2010) The microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34(4):505–510

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stefánsdóttir A, Johansson D, Knutson K, Lidgren L, Robertsson O (2009) Microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty: report from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register on 426 surgically revised cases. Scand J Infect Dis 41(11–12):831–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsukayama DT, Estrada R, Gustilo RB (1996) Infection after total hip arthroplasty: a study of the treatment of one hundred and six infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:512–523

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berbari EF, Marculescu C, Sia I, Lahr BD, Hanssen AD, Steckelberg JM, Gullerud R, Osmon DR (2007) Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis 45:1113–1119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PKM, Johnston RC (1997) Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(2):322–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2011) Dislocation and infection after revision total hip arthroplasty: comparison between the first and multiply revised total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1170–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mortazavi SM, Schwartzenberger J, Austin MS, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty infection: incidence and predictors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(8):2052–2059

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors confirm that there are no conflict of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Walsgrave, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK

    Robert W. Jordan, Nicholas Smith, Rory Norris & Pedro Foguet

  2. The George Eliot Hospital, College Street, Nuneaton, CV10 7DJ, UK

    Adnan Saithna

  3. The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Andrew Sprowson

Authors
  1. Robert W. Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adnan Saithna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rory Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Sprowson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pedro Foguet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adnan Saithna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jordan, R.W., Saithna, A., Smith, N. et al. Does intraoperative tissue sample enrichment help or hinder the identification of microorganisms in prosthetic joint infection?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25, 731–736 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1564-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1564-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation