4.6 Article

Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 117, 期 8, 页码 556-562

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.06.022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Criteria for the interpretation of synovial fluid are well established for native joint disorders but lacking for the evaluation of prosthetic joint failure. Our aim was to define cutoff values for synovial fluid leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage for differentiating aseptic failure and prosthetic joint infection. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 133 patients in whom synovial fluid specimens were collected before total knee arthroplasty revision between January 1998 and December 2003. Patients with underlying inflammatory joint disease were excluded. RESULTS: Aseptic failure was diagnosed in 99 patients and prosthetic joint infection was diagnosed in 34 patients. The synovial fluid leukocyte count was significantly higher in patients with prosthetic joint infection (median, 18.9 X 10(3)/ muL; range, 0.3 to 178 X 10(3)/ muL) than in those with aseptic failure (median, 0.3 X 10(3)/ muL; range, 0.1 to 16 X 10(3)/ muL; P <0.0001); the neutrophil percentage was also significantly higher in patients with prosthetic joint infection (median [range], 92% [55% to 100%] vs. 7% [0% to 79%], P <0.0001). A leukocyte count of >1.7 X 10(3) /muL had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 88% for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection; a differential of >65% neutrophils had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 98%. Staphylococcus aureus was the only pathogen associated with leukocyte counts >100 X 10(3) /muL. CONCLUSION: A synovial fluid leukocyte differential of >65% neutrophils (or aleukocyte count of >1.7 X 10(3)/ muL) is a sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection in patients without underlying inflammatory joint disease. (C) 2004 by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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