Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The quality of diagnostic studies used for the diagnostic criteria of periprosthetic joint infections

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

Abstract

Background

Although periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following a total joint arthroplasty procedure, there remains uncertainty regarding the diagnosis of PJI due to the lack of a globally accepted, standardized definition. The goal of this review is to critically analyze the quality of the evidence used for the novel 2018 MSIS PJI definition and identify gaps and limitations with using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

Methods

References from the modified 2018 MSIS definition for PJI by Parvizi et al. were retrieved and manually reviewed. A total of 11 studies were assessed using a validated QUADAS-2 tool.

Results

Many included studies had an unclear or high risk of bias for the Index Test domain due to a lack of blinding and lack of prespecified thresholds. A majority of studies utilized Youden’s J statistic to optimize the thresholds which may diminish external validity. Likewise, several studies were assessed to have an unclear and high risk of bias for the Flow and Timing domain primarily due to a lack of reporting and a large number of exclusions. Overall, there was a low risk of bias for the choice of reference standard, its conduct and interpretation, as well as for the Patient Selection domain.

Conclusion

Although the literature used for the MSIS 2018 PJI definition is fraught with potential sources of bias, there may be a trend toward an improvement in the quality of evidence when compared to the earlier definition of PJI.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Daigle ME, Weinstein AM, Katz JN, Losina E (2012) The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 26:649–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2012.07.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H et al (2012) Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty 27:61-65.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K et al (2018) The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty 33:1309-1314.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF et al (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res® 469:2992–2994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McNally M, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M et al (2021) The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection: a practical guide for clinicians. Bone Jt J 103:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Saleh A, George J, Sultan AA et al (2019) The quality of diagnostic studies in periprosthetic joint infections: can we do better? J Arthroplasty 34:2737–2743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonanzinga T, Zahar A, Dütsch M et al (2017) How reliable is the alpha-defensin immunoassay test for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection? a prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res® 475:408–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Di Cesare PE, Chang E, Preston CF, Liu C (2005) Serum Interleukin-6 as a marker of periprosthetic infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty. JBJS 87:1921–1927. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.01803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wetters NG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV et al (2012) Leukocyte esterase reagent strips for the rapid diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 27:8–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kildow BJ, Ryan SP, Danilkowicz R et al (2021) Next-generation sequencing not superior to culture in periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis. Bone Jt J 103:26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shohat N, Tan TL, Della Valle CJ et al (2019) Development and validation of an evidence-based algorithm for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 34:2730-2736.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deirmengian C, Kardos K, Kilmartin P et al (2014) Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: has the era of the biomarker arrived? Clin Orthop Relat Res® 472:3254–3262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shahi A, Kheir MM, Tarabichi M et al (2017) Serum D-dimer test is promising for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection and timing of reimplantation. JBJS 99:1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tischler EH, Cavanaugh PK, Parvizi J (2014) Leukocyte esterase strip test: matched for musculoskeletal infection society criteria. JBJS 96:1917–1920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parvizi J, Jacovides C, Antoci V, Ghanem E (2011) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the utility of a simple yet unappreciated enzyme. JBJS 93:2242–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deirmengian C, Kardos K, Kilmartin P et al (2014) Combined measurement of synovial fluid α-defensin and C-reactive protein levels: highly accurate for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. JBJS 96:1439–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sigmund IK, Holinka J, Gamper J et al (2017) Qualitative α-defensin test (Synovasure) for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection in revision total joint arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 99:66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tetreault MW, Wetters NG, Moric M et al (2014) Is synovial C-reactive protein a useful marker for periprosthetic joint infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res® 472:3997–4003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Omar M, Ettinger M, Reichling M et al (2015) Synovial C-reactive protein as a marker for chronic periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 97-B:173–176. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34550

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tarabichi M, Shohat N, Goswami K et al (2018) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the potential of next-generation sequencing. JBJS 100:147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sousa R, Serrano P, Gomes Dias J et al (2017) Improving the accuracy of synovial fluid analysis in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection with simple and inexpensive biomarkers: C-reactive protein and adenosine deaminase. Bone Jt J 99:351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tarabichi M, Fleischman AN, Shahi A et al (2017) Interpretation of leukocyte esterase for the detection of periprosthetic joint infection based on serologic markers. J Arthroplasty 32:S97–S100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Paul HY, Cross MB, Moric M et al (2015) Do serologic and synovial tests help diagnose infection in revision hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings or corrosion? Clin Orthop Relat Res® 473:498–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Biesheuvel C, Irwig L, Bossuyt P (2007) Observed differences in diagnostic test accuracy between patient subgroups: is it real or due to reference standard misclassification? Clin Chem 53:1725–1729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Rijkom HM, Verdonschot EH (1995) Factors involved in validity measurements of diagnostic tests for approximal caries: a meta-analysis. Caries Res 29:364–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Deirmengian C, Kardos K, Kilmartin P et al (2015) The alpha-defensin test for periprosthetic joint infection responds to a wide spectrum of organisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res® 473:2229–2235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shahi A, Tan TL, Kheir MM et al (2017) Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: and the winner is? J Arthroplasty 32:S232–S235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Mansi Patel

  2. Division of Orthopaedic, Department of Surgery, St. Joseph’s Hospital, McMaster University, Room G522, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada

    Aaron Gazendam, Thomas J. Wood, Daniel Tushinski & Kamal Bali

Authors
  1. Mansi Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Gazendam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Tushinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kamal Bali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Hamilton Arthroplasty Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron Gazendam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Ethical standard

An ethics statement is not applicable because this study is based exclusively on published literature.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, M., Gazendam, A., Wood, T.J. et al. The quality of diagnostic studies used for the diagnostic criteria of periprosthetic joint infections. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33, 2035–2048 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03386-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03386-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation