• Injury · Mar 2021

    Efficacy of microbiological culturing in the diagnostics of joint and periprosthetic infections.

    • Árpád Dandé, László G Nöt, Gábor Bűcs, Béla Kocsis, Dénes Lőrinczy, and Norbert Wiegand.
    • Department of Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Clinical Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Pécs, Ifjúság u 13, JPKT Building, 7th floor, Pécs, H-7624, Hungary.
    • Injury. 2021 Mar 1; 52 Suppl 1: S48-S52.

    ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of conventional microbiological examinations in the diagnostics of septic joint and periprosthetic inflammations.Design And SettingEvidence Level IV, retrospective clinical study of case series. Patients treated with small and large joint septic inflammations or with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) were entered into the study. Demographics, microbiological cultures and inflammatory mediators were evaluated.ParticipantsBetween 2012 and 2016, total of 1116 hip and 241 knee surgeries were performed at our Department in relation to prostheses; including primary and revision arthroplasties and further surgeries due to PJI. During this period, 72 patients were operated with large joints infections or PJI and another 65 patients were treated due to small joint infections.Main Outcome MeasuresThe main outcome of interest was to evaluate the sensitivity of conventional microbiological cultures in the primary diagnostics of joint and periprosthetic infections.ResultsThe most frequent bacteria strains were the Staphylococci: in 43 cases (22.16%) Staphylococcus aureus, in 22 cases (11.34%) coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, in 3 cases (1.54%) Staphylococcus epidermidis and in 4 cases (2.06%) methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) were detected. In 30 cases (21.88%), the primary microbiological investigation could not reveal the presence of bacteria.ConclusionBased on our data, the efficacy of conventional microbiological testing in the diagnostics of different type of joint infections is questionable. Therefore, further studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of novel diagnostic testing tools in prospective randomized controlled trials.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…