4.5 Article

Multiplex PCR Unyvero i60 ITI application improves detection of low-virulent microorganisms in periprosthetic joint infections

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 1891-1898

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4136-z

关键词

Multiplex PCR system; Periprosthetic joint infection; Low-grade infections; Low-virulent microorganisms; Diagnosis

资金

  1. Medical University of Vienna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the pre-operative performance of an automated multiplex PCR (mPCR) system in patients with suspected periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).MethodsUnder sterile conditions, synovial fluid samples from patients with a suspected PJI were collected pre-operatively. One hundred eighty microliter of the aspirate was used for analysis in the mPCR. The remaining joint fluid was sent for microbiological analysis. PJI was diagnosed by using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Total percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient were calculated to measure overall agreement.ResultsOverall, 90 patients with a suspected PJI were included. Using MSIS criteria, 38 (42%) patients were classified as septic. Total percent agreement between mPCR and synovial fluid culture was 86% with a Cohen's kappa of 0.68. The mPCR and synovial fluid culture showed sensitivities of 71% and 84%, respectively. Combined evaluation provided an even higher sensitivity of 92%. While Cutibacterium spp. were detected five times by mPCR, it could only be cultured once. A higher detection rate of CoNS by mPCR (n=7) compared to conventional culture (n=5) was also demonstrated. In comparison to synovial fluid culture, the mPCR missed Staphylococcus aureus five times.ConclusionWith a moderate agreement between synovial fluid mPCR and culture, the mPCR system could be a useful adjunct in diagnosing a PJI pre-operatively. Due to faster availability of results and a higher detection rate of low-virulent microorganisms, it can complement conventional culture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据