Dataset Information

Plasma d-Dimer Levels in Non-prosthetic Orthopaedic Implant Infection: Can it Aid Diagnosis?

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

d-Dimer estimation has been proposed as a reliable biomarker in prosthetic joint infections. Its role in non-prosthetic orthopaedic implant infections has, however, not been studied. The objectives of this study were to assess the levels of plasma d-Dimer in non-prosthetic orthopaedic implant infection. The diagnostic efficiency of d-dimer on orthopaedic implant-related infection was evaluated.

Methods

The study was designed as a cross-sectional comparative study. Patients who presented with orthopaedic implant-related infection as diagnosed by modified MSIS criteria were allocated to case group (n = 49) and patients who underwent surgical procedures with orthopaedic implants with no evidence of infection at 6 weeks postoperatively were allocated to the control group (n = 48). Serum d-Dimer levels were assessed quantitatively using immunoturbidimetric assays in both groups and compared between both groups.

Results

The mean (± SD) value of serum d-Dimer in case group was 0.64 (± 0.45) μg/ml and control group was 0.77 (± 0.47) μg/ml. No significant difference was found in serum d-Dimer levels between cases and control groups (p value = 0.183). The diagnostic accuracy of d-dimer in orthopaedic implant-related infection also could not be demonstrated.

Conclusion

The findings of d-dimer as a marker for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections cannot be extrapolated to non-prosthetic orthopaedic implant infection.

SUBMITTER: Karunakaran G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7474018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:MINI: We compared the sensitivity and specificity of peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing-sonication technique for the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII). Lower thresholds of sonicate fluid culture positivity showed increased sensitivity with maintained specificity. We recommend a threshold of 20 CFU/10 mL for sonicate culture positivity for the diagnosis of SII.Study designThis is a retrospective study comparing the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII) by peri-implant tissue culture to vortexing-sonication of retrieved spinal implants.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that vortexing-sonication would be more sensitive than peri-implant tissue culture.Summary of background dataWe previously showed implant vortexing-sonication followed by culture to be more sensitive than standard peri-implant tissue culture for diagnosing of SII. In this follow-up study, we analyzed the largest sample size available in the literature to compare these two culture methods and evaluated thresholds for positivity for sonicate fluid for SII diagnosis.MethodsWe compared peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing-sonication technique which samples bacterial biofilm on the surface of retrieved spinal implants. We evaluated different thresholds for sonicate fluid positivity and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the two culture methods for the diagnosis of SII.ResultsA total of 152 patients were studied. With more than 100 colony forming units (CFU)/10 mL as a threshold for sonicate fluid culture positivity, there were 46 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 65.2% and 79.6%; the specificities were 88.7% and 93.4%, respectively. With more than 50 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 50 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 68.0% and 76.0%; the specificities were 92.2% for both methods. Finally, with more than or equal to 20 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 52 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 69.2% and 82.7%; the specificities were 94.0% and 92.0%, respectively.ConclusionImplant sonication followed by culture is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of SII. Lower thresholds for defining sonicate fluid culture positivity allow for increased sensitivity with a minimal decrease in specificity, enhancing the clinical utility of implant sonication.Level of evidence4.