» Articles » PMID: 20162386

Blood Culture Flasks for Culturing Synovial Fluid in Prosthetic Joint Infections

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2010 Feb 18
PMID 20162386
Citations 56
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Identifying the etiologic microorganism is essential to guide antimicrobial therapy in prosthetic joint infection.

Questions/purpose: We (1) compared the frequency of positive cultures with synovial fluid inoculated in blood culture flasks (SF) with those of periprosthetic tissues or swabs in traditional cultures from patients with acute and chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI) and (2) determined the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the three methods.

Patients And Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 87 patients with PJIs (54 knees, 33 hips) and 63 patients with aseptic loosening (34 knees, 29 hips). Two SF, periprosthetic tissue, and swab samples were taken for culture in all 150 patients except for 14 in whom only one SF fluid sample was obtained. Synovial fluid was inoculated in blood culture flasks and periprosthetic tissue and swab samples in standard media. Positive cultures were identified with standard biochemical procedures.

Results: SF samples were positive in 78 of 87 infected cases (90%), periprosthetic tissue samples were positive in 71 (82%), and swab samples were positive in 59 (68%). SF, periprosthetic tissue, and swab samples were positive more frequently in acute than in chronic infections (96% versus 82% for SF, 87% versus 74% for periprosthetic tissue, and 87% versus 44% for swabs). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of SF were 91, 100, 100, and 93 for acute infections and 79, 100, 100, and 88 for chronic infections, respectively.

Conclusions: SF samples cultured in flasks had higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for diagnosis of PJI when compared with standard tissue and swab samples. The usefulness of all samples was less in chronic than in acute infections.

Level Of Evidence: Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Citing Articles

Concordance of three different methods to obtain samples for culture in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study.

Torrens C, Companys R, Suarez-Lopez A, Perez-Prieto D, Santana F, Alier A Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025; 35(1):100.

PMID: 40053163 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-025-04206-7.


Advantages in orthopaedic implant infection diagnostics by additional analysis of explants.

Suda A, Miethke T, Landua N, Obertacke U Int Orthop. 2025; .

PMID: 39969590 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-025-06424-4.


Native Joint Septic Arthritis.

Wu K, Kugelman D, Seidelman J, Seyler T Antibiotics (Basel). 2024; 13(7).

PMID: 39061278 PMC: 11274354. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13070596.


Improved cure rate of periprosthetic joint infection through targeted antibiotic therapy based on integrated pathogen diagnosis strategy.

Wang Q, Chen Y, Chen Y, Lv J, Ding H, Huang J Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024; 14:1388385.

PMID: 38836059 PMC: 11148460. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2024.1388385.


Optimized decision algorithm for the microbiological diagnosis of osteoarticular infections in adults using synovial fluid samples: a prospective study in two French hospitals including 423 samples of synovial fluid.

Dupieux C, Descours G, Verhoeven P, Grattard F, Benito Y, Vandenesch F J Bone Jt Infect. 2024; 9(1):37-48.

PMID: 38600997 PMC: 11004666. DOI: 10.5194/jbji-9-37-2024.


References
1.
Feldman D, Lonner J, Desai P, Zuckerman J . The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77(12):1807-13. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199512000-00003. View

2.
Atkins B, Athanasou N, Deeks J, Crook D, Simpson H, Peto T . Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36(10):2932-9. PMC: 105090. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.10.2932-2939.1998. View

3.
Della Valle C, Zuckerman J, Di Cesare P . Periprosthetic sepsis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (420):26-31. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200403000-00005. View

4.
Knobben B, Engelsma Y, Neut D, van der Mei H, Busscher H, van Horn J . Intraoperative contamination influences wound discharge and periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 452:236-41. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000229339.11351.ea. View

5.
Costerton J . Biofilm theory can guide the treatment of device-related orthopaedic infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (437):7-11. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200508000-00003. View