Differential diagnostics in painful arthroplasty is crucial for treatment success. Joint aspiration is routinely performed preoperatively. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction of the joint aspirate and the sonication fluid, a feasible tool for quick pathogen detection from these samples is described.
In orthopedic patients, foreign body-associated infections, especially periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), are a devastating complication of arthroplasty. Infection requires complex treatment, may result in long hospitalization and causes considerable costs. Multiple surgical revisions can be necessary in these patients, with a loss in function as well as in quality of life.
The routine preoperative diagnostics include blood examination for C-reactive protein (CRP) and other biomarkers, as well as joint aspirate analysis for cell count, differentiation, and culture. Intraoperative specimens for histology and microbiology are also standard procedure. The microbiological examination of removed implants with sonication, in combination with the implementation of molecular biology techniques in microbiology, represent two novel techniques currently employed to enhance the differential diagnostics of PJI.
We present here the step-wise procedure of analyzing joint aspirate and sonication fluid, using a cartridge-based multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) system. Results were matched against conventional cultures and consensus criteria for PJI. Conventional microbiological cultures from tissue biopsies, joint aspirate and sonication fluid showed a sensitivity of 66.7%, 66.7%, and 88.9%, respectively, and a specificity of 82.3%, 54.6%, and 61.5%, respectively. The PCR diagnostic of the sonication fluid and the joint fluid showed a sensitivity of 50.0% and 55.6%, respectively, and both a specificity of 100.0%. Both PCR diagnostics combined had a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 100.0%. The multiplex PCR therefore presents a rapid diagnostic tool with moderate sensitivity but high specificity in diagnosing PJI.
Painful arthroplasties are a diagnostic challenge in orthopedic surgery. After aseptic loosening, PJI is the second most reason for implant failure, and presents a devastating complication after arthroplasty surgery. PJI is difficult to treat and difficult to diagnose. Missed diagnosis of a PJI will likely result in recurrent infection, with major morbidity, loss of function, and loss of quality of life. Therefore, infection should be ruled out in all patients presenting with painful arthroplasty, before therapeutic measures are initiated.
Patient history, clinical examination, blood examination for CRP and white blood cell count, as well as radiography or szintigraphy of the affected joint constitute the basic diagnostics1. The preoperative routine should also include a joint aspiration under sterile conditions wherever possible. The aspirate acquired is a very valuable material in further diagnostics.
Besides the cell count and cell differentiation in joint aspirate as well-established assays2, the detection of protein biomarkers may help in differential diagnostics3,4,5. Conventional microbiological culture remains the gold standard in pathogen detection. Biofilms, caused by both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, and adherent to the implant surfaces, are a major pathogenic factor in PJI. Therefore, in 2007, the sonication procedure was implemented in the diagnostics of foreign body-associated infections in orthopedic surgery, disrupting the biofilms on removed implants to allow pathogen detection. The bacteria are thereby taken from their resting form to an active form, making detection in culture possible again. Sonication of removed implants showed a higher sensitivity than cultures from tissue specimens (78.5% vs. 60.8%)6.
Nucleic acid amplification test (NAT), such as PCR, has recently moved into the scope of clinicians and microbiologists to diagnose PJI. Especially in patients who received antibiotic therapy prior to surgery, it was shown that the PCR diagnostic is beneficial in identifying the causative organisms7,8,9. Lately, a new multiplex PCR system, specially designed for implant and tissue infections (ITI), was introduced. This cartridge-based system offers a variety of genomic markers for identification of pathogens and antibiotic resistance markers. Among its application range are numerous indications (prosthetic joint infections, surgical site infections, cardiology-related infections, catheter-associated infections, diabetic foot infections, deep skin and tissue infections, implant infections, and burn-wound infections), and a broad panel of sample material can be used for this technique (sonication fluid, synovial fluid, swabs, tissue, pus, aspirate/exudate, and biofilm)10,11,12.
The greatest advantage of the procedure, as compared to conventional microbiology, is speed: The causative pathogen can be identified within hours. Additionally, this PCR system detects a broad panel of gene-encoded resistance markers, allowing the initiation of targeted antibiotic therapy early on. With the assistance of PCR, surgeons may be able to distinguish between infected and non-infected patients at a very early stage in the diagnostic procedure11. Here, we present the protocol to perform this multiplex PCR, quickly diagnosing PJI from joint aspirate and sonication fluid.
This study was approved by the local ethics committee (046/09, Rev. 3). Informed consent and data privacy statement were obtained from all patients included.
1. Joint Aspiration
NOTE: The procedure should be performed in a surgical theater or an intervention room with comparable aseptic conditions. Assistance by a nurse or doctor's assistance is helpful but not mandatory.
2. PCR Diagnostics
3. Surgical Procedure: Intraoperative Sample Collection
NOTE: Revision arthroplasty surgery requires an expert level of skill and expertise; for a comprehensive overview of the surgical procedures, please refer to surgeon's textbooks18. A full and detailed description of the surgical procedure would be well beyond the scope of this article. Here the focus is on the details of the sample collection and pre-analytics. In revision arthroplasty surgery, refrain from administration of a single shot antibiotic prophylaxis, as not to compromise the results of the microbiological samples obtained during surgery. Adhering to this rule is recommended, though this practice is controversial19,20. Use the existing surgical approach to the joint whenever possible. Additional surgical approaches will compromise soft tissues and increase scar formation.
4. Sonication
NOTE: Be careful to work strictly aseptically. Use a Class II biosafety bench with laminar air-flow for further processing of the explanted material.
Presence of a PJI, as defined by the consensus meeting of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), was considered proven when one major criteria or at least three out of five minor criteria were present. Major criteria include presence of a fistula or detection of a pathogen in two separate microbiological samples. Minor criteria include positive cell count ( >3,000 leukocytes/µL) or positive cell differentiation ( >85% neutrophil granulocytes) in joint aspirate, positive CRP and sedimentation rate in blood samples, positive histology in the tissue samples or detection of a pathogen in just one microbiological sample19. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for nucleic acid amplification test (NAT), as compared to the MSIS gold standard. Patient details, including pathogens detected, are given in Table 1.
Our own results showed a moderate sensitivity for PCR diagnostic of sonication fluid and joint aspirate (50.0% and 55.6%) but a very strong specificity of 100%11. Whenever PCR diagnostic (total n = 62 tests) showed a positive finding in the joint aspirate (n = 31) or the sonication fluid (n = 31), the same pathogen was detected later in one of the conventional microbiological cultures. The PCR of the different samples of non-infection cases showed no false positive result (see Figure 1).
The PCR diagnostic failed to detect some pathogens that were proven with conventional microbiological culture methods. 6 out of 16 (37.0%) true pathogens in the sonication fluid samples and 5 out of 13 (38.0%) pathogens from the joint fluid culture were missed by PCR detection. Mostly, the PCR diagnostics missed detection of coagulase-negative staphylococci (8 out of 11). The combined PCR diagnostics of both materials (joint aspirate and sonication fluid, "pooled PCR") identified 12 out of 18 infection cases correctly (sensitivity 66.7%, 95% CI: 41.0% to 86.7%, see Table 2).
Figure 1: Summary of NAT results. The graph depicts the summarized results from the collective patient samples. On the right side is the group of patients matching PJI criteria, on the left side is the group that did not. The bars represent the nucleic acid amplification methods. False positives and false negatives are shown in red as percentage of the total. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Joint | Cause of Revision | Matches MSIS Criteria? | Previous antibiotic treatment? | Sonication fluid culture | Joint aspirate culture | NAT sonication culture | NAT joint aspirate |
Hip | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
|||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | Dermabacter hominis |
|||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | Leifsonia aquatica |
|||
Hip | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Knee | instability | No | No | ||||
Hip | chronic luxation | No | No | Staphylococcus haemolyticus |
|||
Knee | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Hip | aseptic loosening | No | No | ||||
Hip | aseptic loosening | No | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
|||
Knee | instability | No | No | ||||
Knee | acute infection | Yes | Yes | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa |
|
Knee | acute infection | Yes | No | Escherichia coli |
Escherichia coli |
Escherichia coli |
|
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | No | Corynebakterium spp. |
Staphlococcus epidermidis |
||
Knee | acute infection | Yes | No | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus |
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | No | Streptococcus agalacticae |
Streptococcus agalacticae |
Streptococcus agalacticae |
Streptococcus agalacticae |
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | Yes | Staphylococcus aureus | |||
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
|||
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | Yes | Staphlococcu epidermidis |
Staphlococcus epidermidis |
||
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Staphlococcus epidermidis |
||
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
|
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus | ||
Knee | acute infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
Hip | acute infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
||
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Staphlococcus epidermidis |
||
Hip | acute infection | Yes | No | Staphlococcus epidermidis |
Coagulase-negative Staphylococci |
||
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | No | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus | Staphylococcus aureus |
|
Hip | chronic infection | Yes | No | Enterococcus faecialis |
Enterococcus faecialis |
Enterococcus spp. |
Enterococcus spp. |
Knee | chronic infection | Yes | Yes | Enterocuccus faecalis |
Enterocuccus faecalis |
Enterococcus spp. |
Enterococcus spp. |
Table 1: Patient details and detected pathogens. Tabular results of the patient details, including the cause of revision surgery, the MSIS criteria matching and the detected pathogens in conventional microbiology and NAAT analysis.
Criteria | PCR Sonicate | PCR Aspirate | Pooled PCR |
P value | 0.0036 | 0.0013 | 0.0001 |
Sensitivity | 50.0% | 55.6% | 66.7% |
Specificity | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Positive Predictive Value | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Negative Predictive Value | 59.1% | 61.9% | 68.4% |
Table 2: Results of microbiological methods. Tabular results of the evaluation of the PCR diagnostic of sonication fluid, joint aspirate and pooled PCR. N = 31 specimen for aspirate and sonication, respectively, n = 62 for the pooled PCR data.
Foreign body infection is an emerging problem in orthopedic and trauma surgery with costly treatment, long hospitalization and functional deficiency of the affected joints. The differential diagnostic is challenging. Many researchers and clinicians are giving attention to this topic, striving to find more precise and reliable methods to diagnose foreign body associated infections. To date, many different diagnostic tools are being evaluated and implemented in the diagnostic path32.
The sonication procedure is an invaluable method, showing a better sensitivity than conventional cultures from tissue specimens6. In our study, we showed that sonication fluid cultures have a sensitivity of 88.9% with a specificity of 61.5%. Conventional cultures from tissue specimens and joint aspirates both had a sensitivity of 66.7% with a specificity of 82.3% and 84.6%, respectively. Other researchers show similar results for these conventional microbiological procedures6,33,34,35. It is often criticized that sonication procedure is prone to contamination, so special care must be taken in the handling of the samples.
The possibility of detecting DNA of a causative pathogen in tissue specimens or fluids is intriguing. NAT is a rapid procedure which can deliver results within a couple of hours, as compared to the time-consuming microbiological culture methods. Without doubt, NAT has a good sensitivity in detecting pathogens, but hold the risk of detecting contaminants, thus lacking specificity36. The great benefit of this PCR technique in diagnosing PJI was documented especially in patients who received antibiotic therapy close to surgery or for a longer period7,8. Studies suggest that NAT of sonication fluid may further increase sensitivity and specificity37. Unfortunately, this technique is not routinely available in laboratories, due to its time-consuming workflow.
There are certain limitations to the PCR technique in general: NAT detects DNA with no differentiation between viable and non-viable bacteria, making interpretation of the results difficult. Broad-range PCR will only detect ribosomal 16S ribonucleic acid (16S rRNA), not differentiating between pathogens37. More specific systems do not routinely detect gene-encoded antibiotic resistance markers. A targeted antibiotic therapy may therefore be limited without further susceptibility testing.
The system applied in this study overcomes some of these limitations, differentiating between specific bacteria and identifying gene-encoded resistance markers. Overall, NAT assays may be considered as a fast and useful complementation to confirm PJI7,8,9,38.
It is necessary to plan ahead in joint aspiration and in surgery: Sample containers must be sterile and ready, and prompt sample transport must be available. Surgeons should brief their microbiologists on planned procedures and what sample material to expect. When performing the joint aspiration, strictly sterile conditions must be ensured, to prevent iatrogenic infection of the joint. In adipose patients, joint puncture can be challenging, and fluoroscopic guidance can be helpful. Revision arthroplasty surgery requires a very high level of expertise, and should only be performed by a skilled surgeon. Explanted material should not be kept in the operating room any longer than necessary, but be sent to the microbiologist as soon as possible. A very critical part within this protocol is the potential risk of contamination. Not only while gathering the samples, but also while handling the samples in the microbiology lab, all personnel involved (orthopedic surgeon, nurses, technicians, microbiologists) must work quickly and accurately, and have proper training in the procedures.
Sonication and NAT are valuable tools in diagnosing implant-associated infections. Nevertheless, the results should always be questioned carefully. We recommend discussing the results in a round table discussion of orthopedic surgeons, microbiologists and infectious disease specialists, and pathologists to agree on the individualized therapeutic strategy.
To implement this technique in the diagnostic path of PJI can have several advantages. It is a rapid diagnostic with a result within hours. Due to the analysis of several gene encoded resistance markers, a targeted antibiotic therapy can take place at a very early stage in the clinical course. As a side effect, broad-range antibiotics can be saved for the indications where they are truly needed. Other sample types (e.g. tissue specimens, swabs, hematoma, etc.) can also be investigated according to our protocol. Since the PCR cartridge is a closed system, no troubleshooting is necessary or possible on the user side. Any adaptation of the protocol must be implemented by the manufacturer. Changes in both software and hardware (cartridge) are continuously made by the manufacturer to enhance the system, however no details are made public on the exact changes in newer versions.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to thank Curetis GmbH for supporting this study.
sterile plastic container | Lock & Lock, Distributor ISI GmbH, Solingen, Germany | EAN 8803733184403 | Transport container for implants |
Bactosonic 14.2 | Bactosonic, Bandelin, Berlin, Germany | 3290 | "Sonication machine" |
50ml Falcon tubes | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 352070 | Centrifugation |
PEDS medium blood culture flasks | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 442194 | culture medium |
Columbia agar with 5% sheep blood | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254071 | culture medium |
Mac Conkey agar | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254078 | culture medium |
chocolate agar | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254089 | culture medium |
sabouraud agar | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254096 | culture medium |
thioglycolate bouillon | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 221788 | culture medium |
Schaedler agar | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254084 | culture medium |
kanamycin/vancomycin agar | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 254077 | culture medium |
Bactec FX blood culture system | Becton & Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany | 441386/441385 | culture medium |
Unyvero A50 Analyzer | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 60001 | PCR machine |
Unyvero L4 Lysator | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 60002 | PCR machine |
Unyvero C8 Cockpit | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 60003 | PCR machine |
Unyvero M1 Masterix Tube | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 10002 | consumables PCR |
Unyvero i60 ITI Cartridge | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 10040 | consumables PCR |
Unyvero Sample Tube Cap | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 10004 | consumables PCR |
Unyvero Sample Tube | Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany | 10003 | consumables PCR |
S-Monovette 2.7ml | Sarstedt AG, Nümbrecht, Germany | 05.1729.001 | Transport container (aspirate) |
scalpel typ 11 | pfm medical, Cologne, Germany | 200130011 | scalpel for stab incision |
PP Container 70mL 55x45mm | Sarstedt AG, Nümbrecht, Germany | 759,922,721 | Transport container (tissue specimen) |
Vicryl Plus | Johnson&Johnson Medical GmbH, Ethicon Germany, Norderstedt, Germany | VCP247H | surgical suture material |
Prolene 0 | Johnson&Johnson Medical GmbH, Ethicon Germany, Norderstedt, Germany | EH7920H | surgical suture material |
Prolene 2/0 | Johnson&Johnson Medical GmbH, Ethicon Germany, Norderstedt, Germany | EH7697H | surgical suture material |
Kodan Tinktur forte farblos | Schülke & Mayr GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany | 104005 | alcoholic skin disinfectant |