Can Pre-analytical Procedures Improve Microbiological Culture Yield in Patients with Periprosthetic Infections?

Overview

Journal BMC Microbiol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Microbiology

Date 2024 Sep 10

PMID 39256688

Authors

Juliane Kaschner

Christoph Theil

Georg Gosheger

Jan Schwarze

Jan Putzler

Frieder Schaumburg

Burkhard Mollenbeck

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The detection of causative pathogens plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and targeted treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). While there have been improvements in analytic methods in the past, pre-analytical procedures have not yet been sufficiently investigated. The objective of this study was to compare the culture yield of four different pre-analytical procedures.

Methods: Patients with perioperative diagnosis of PJI were included in a single center cross-sectional study (2021-2022). Tissue samples (n = 20) of each patient were randomly and equally distributed to each of the four study arms. Tissue samples were either send to the laboratory without culture medium (group A) or were transported in thioglycolate medium immediately after sampling at three different temperatures (room temperature, 4 °C, 37° for 24 h; group B-D). Culture media were investigated for growth on days 1, 3, 7, 12, 14. All organisms, the number of positive samples and the time to positivity were recorded and compared between the study arms. Single positive cultures were considered as contamination.

Results: In total, 71 patients were included. The proportions of culture negative samples (10-15%) and polymicrobial infections (51-54%) were comparable between the four arms. Seven patients (10%) were culture-negative in group A, but showed growth in thioglycolate media (group B-D). Furthermore, 13% of patients showed growth in all groups, but additional organisms were cultured in thioglycolate. There was growth beyond day 7 of culturing only in thioglycolate, but not in group A. A storage temperature of 4 °C showed a longer time to positivity compared to the other groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Pre-analytical storage of tissue samples in thioglycolate broth did not improve the culture yield and did not detect additional cases of infection compared to the standard (pre-analytical storage in sterile containers). However, including a thioglycolate medium to the sampling algorithm reduced the rate of culture-negative infections and helped to identify additional organisms.

References

Klement M, Cunningham D, Wooster B, Wellman S, Bolognesi M, Green C . Comparing Standard Versus Extended Culture Duration in Acute Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 27(9):e437-e443. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00674. View

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

McNally M, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Chen A, Soriano A, Vogely H . The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2020; 103-B(1):18-25. PMC: 7954183. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B1.BJJ-2020-1381.R1. View

Cauter M, Cornu O, Yombi J, Rodriguez-Villalobos H, Kaminski L . The effect of storage delay and storage temperature on orthopaedic surgical samples contaminated by Staphylococcus Epidermidis. PLoS One. 2018; 13(3):e0192048. PMC: 5858844. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192048. View

Patel A, Pavlou G, Mujica-Mota R, Toms A . The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(8):1076-81. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35170. View

Bossard D, Ledergerber B, Zingg P, Gerber C, Zinkernagel A, Zbinden R . Optimal Length of Cultivation Time for Isolation of Propionibacterium acnes in Suspected Bone and Joint Infections Is More than 7 Days. J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54(12):3043-3049. PMC: 5121398. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01435-16. View

Berbari E, Marculescu C, Sia I, Lahr B, Hanssen A, Steckelberg J . Culture-negative prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 45(9):1113-9. DOI: 10.1086/522184. View

Watanabe S, Kobayashi N, Tomoyama A, Choe H, Yamazaki E, Inaba Y . Differences in Diagnostic Properties Between Standard and Enrichment Culture Techniques Used in Periprosthetic Joint Infections. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 35(1):235-240. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.035. View

Tarabichi S, Goh G, Zanna L, Qadiri Q, Baker C, Gehrke T . Time to Positivity of Cultures Obtained for Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022; 105(2):107-112. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.22.00766. View

10.

Trampuz A, Piper K, Hanssen A, Osmon D, Cockerill F, Steckelberg J . Sonication of explanted prosthetic components in bags for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection is associated with risk of contamination. J Clin Microbiol. 2006; 44(2):628-31. PMC: 1392705. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.44.2.628-631.2006. View

11.

Morgenstern C, Cabric S, Perka C, Trampuz A, Renz N . Synovial fluid multiplex PCR is superior to culture for detection of low-virulent pathogens causing periprosthetic joint infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017; 90(2):115-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.10.016. View

12.

Rieber H, Frontzek A, Jerosch J, Alefeld M, Strohecker T, Ulatowski M . Periprosthetic joint infection caused by anaerobes. Retrospective analysis reveals no need for prolonged cultivation time if sensitive supplemented growth media are used. Anaerobe. 2018; 50:12-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.01.009. View

13.

Tan T, Kheir M, Shohat N, Tan D, Kheir M, Chen C . Culture-Negative Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Update on What to Expect. JB JS Open Access. 2018; 3(3):e0060. PMC: 6242327. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.17.00060. View

14.

Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari E, Bauer T, Springer B, Della Valle C . New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(11):2992-4. PMC: 3183178. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9. View

15.

Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill J, Parvizi J . Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(7):1710-5. PMC: 2505241. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4. View

16.

Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Menashe S, Barrack R, Bauer T . Periprosthetic infection: what are the diagnostic challenges?. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88 Suppl 4:138-47. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00609. View

17.

Tarabichi M, Shohat N, Goswami K, Parvizi J . Can next generation sequencing play a role in detecting pathogens in synovial fluid?. Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B(2):127-133. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B2.BJJ-2017-0531.R2. View

18.

Parvizi J, Tan T, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen A . The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(5):1309-1314.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. View

19.

Talsma D, Ploegmakers J, Jutte P, Kampinga G, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M . Time to positivity of acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infection cultures. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020; 99(1):115178. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115178. View

20.

Trampuz A, Piper K, Jacobson M, Hanssen A, Unni K, Osmon D . Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(7):654-63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa061588. View