The 2013 Frank Stinchfield Award: Diagnosis of Infection in the Early Postoperative Period After Total Hip Arthroplasty
Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult in the early postoperative period after total hip arthroplasty (THA) because normal cues from the physical examination often are unreliable, and serological markers commonly used for diagnosis are elevated from the recent surgery.
The purposes of this study were to determine the optimal cutoff values for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, and differential for diagnosing PJI in the early postoperative period after primary THA.
We reviewed 6033 consecutive primary THAs and identified 73 patients (1.2%) who underwent reoperation for any reason within the first 6 weeks postoperatively. Thirty-six of these patients were infected according to modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. Mean values for the diagnostic tests were compared between groups and receiver operating characteristic curves generated along with an area under the curve (AUC) to determine test performance and optimal cutoff values to diagnose infection.
The best test for the diagnosis of PJI was the synovial fluid WBC count (AUC = 98%; optimal cutoff value 12,800 cells/μL) followed by the CRP (AUC = 93%; optimal cutoff value 93 mg/L), and synovial fluid differential (AUC = 91%; optimal cutoff value 89% PMN). The mean ESR (infected = 69 mm/hr, not infected = 46 mm/hr), CRP (infected = 192 mg/L, not infected = 30 mg/L), synovial fluid WBC count (infected = 84,954 cells/μL, not infected = 2391 cells/μL), and differential (infected = 91% polymorphonuclear cells [PMN], not infected = 63% PMN) all were significantly higher in the infected group.
Optimal cutoff values for the diagnosis of PJI in the acute postoperative period were higher than those traditionally used for the diagnosis of chronic PJI. The serum CRP is an excellent screening test, whereas the synovial fluid WBC count is more specific.
Level of Evidence
Level III, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
We thank Matthew Tetreault, Nicholas Ting, and Laura Quigley for their assistance in data collection.
- 3.Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Morris MJ, Bergeson AG, Adams JB, Sneller MA. Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Sep 15 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 7.Cahill JL, Shadbolt B, Scarvell JM, Smith PN. Quality of life after infection in total joint replacement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008;16:58–65.Google Scholar
- 9.Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Jacobs JJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Paprosky WG. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:90–93.Google Scholar
- 20.Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–2994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Schinsky MF, Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Perioperative testing for joint infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1869–1875.Google Scholar
- 23.Tetreault MW, Wetters NG, Aggarwal V, Mont M, Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: Should prophylactic antibiotics be withheld before revision surgery to obtain appropriate cultures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Apr 30 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar