Molecular sequencing technologies in the diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infections

Highlighting New Perspectives on Musculoskeletal Infections

The treatment of musculoskeletal and prosthetic joint infections represents a considerable challenge for patients, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system because of the high number of treatment failures and the significant economic burden [...].

The Challenge of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis: From Current Methods to Emerging Biomarkers

Due to the increase in the life span and mobility at older ages, the number of implanted prosthetic joints is constantly increasing. However, the number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), one of the most severe complications after total joint arthroplasty, also shows an increasing trend. PJI has an incidence of 1-2% in the case of primary arthroplasties and up to 4% in the case of revision operations. The development of efficient protocols for managing periprosthetic infections can lead to the establishment of preventive measures and effective diagnostic methods based on the results obtained after the laboratory tests. In this review, we will briefly present the current methods used in PJI diagnosis and the current and emerging synovial biomarkers used for the prognosis, prophylaxis, and early diagnosis of periprosthetic infections. We will discuss treatment failure that may result from patient factors, microbiological factors, or factors related to errors during diagnosis.

Advances in the Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infections

A significant number of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are culture-negative and/or misinterpreted as aseptic failures in spite of the correct implementation of diagnostic culture techniques, such as tissue sample processing in a bead mill, prolonged incubation time, or sonication of removed implants. Misinterpretation may lead to unnecessary surgery and needless antimicrobial treatment. The diagnostic value of non-culture techniques has been investigated in synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues, and sonication fluid. Different feasible improvements, such as real-time technology, automated systems and commercial kits are now available to support microbiologists. In this review, we describe non-culture techniques based on nucleic acid amplification and sequencing methods. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a frequently used technique in most microbiology laboratories which allows the detection of a nucleic acid fragment by sequence amplification. Different PCR types can be used to diagnose PJI, each one requiring the selection of appropriate primers. Henceforward, thanks to the reduced cost of sequencing and the availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS), it will be possible to identify the whole pathogen genome sequence and, additionally, to detect all the pathogen sequences present in the joint. Although these new techniques have proved helpful, strict conditions need to be observed in order to detect fastidious microorganisms and rule out contaminants. Specialized microbiologists should assist clinicians in interpreting the result of the analyses at interdisciplinary meetings. New technologies will gradually be made available to improve the etiologic diagnoses of PJI, which will remain an important cornerstone of treatment. Strong collaboration among all specialists involved is essential for the correct diagnosis of PJI.

Prospective Comparison Between Shotgun Metagenomics and Sanger Sequencing of the 16S rRNA Gene for the Etiological Diagnosis of Infections

Bacteriological diagnosis is traditionally based on culture. However, this method may be limited by the difficulty of cultivating certain species or by prior exposure to antibiotics, which justifies the resort to molecular methods, such as Sanger sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene (Sanger 16S). Recently, shotgun metagenomics (SMg) has emerged as a powerful tool to identify a wide range of pathogenic microorganisms in numerous clinical contexts. In this study, we compared the performance of SMg to Sanger 16S for bacterial detection and identification. All patients’ samples for which Sanger 16S was requested between November 2019 and April 2020 in our institution were prospectively included. The corresponding samples were tested with a commercial 16S semi-automated method and a semi-quantitative pan-microorganism DNA- and RNA-based SMg method. Sixty-seven samples from 64 patients were analyzed. Overall, SMg was able to identify a bacterial etiology in 46.3% of cases (31/67) vs. 38.8% (26/67) with Sanger 16S. This difference reached significance when only the results obtained at the species level were compared (28/67 vs. 13/67). This study provides one of the first evidence of a significantly better performance of SMg than Sanger 16S for bacterial detection at the species level in patients with infectious diseases for whom culture-based methods have failed. This technology has the potential to replace Sanger 16S in routine practice for infectious disease diagnosis.

Is sonication superior to dithiothreitol in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections? A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Even though effective techniques in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) have been developed, the optimal modality has yet to be determined. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dithiothreitol (DTT) and sonication against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria in patients undergoing revision joint surgery.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Central Cochrane register of controlled trials as well as gray literature until the 9th of November, 2021. We included articles considering the comparative diagnostic accuracy of sonication and DTT in adult patients having revision hip and knee arthroplasty for septic or aseptic reasons. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the above diagnostic techniques against the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and created receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves to enable comparisons between each other. The quality of included papers was evaluated utilizing QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools.

RESULTS

Data from five comparative studies totaling 726 implants were pooled together. The diagnostic accuracy of DTT and sonication were 86.7% (95% CI 82.7 to 90.1) and 83.9% (95% CI 79.7 to 87.5), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity showed no statistically significant differences between DTT and sonication (0.7 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.77] vs 0.72 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.78], p = 0.14; and 0.99 [95% CI 0.97 to 1] vs 0.97 [95% CI 0.93 to 0.99], p = 5.5, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not identify any clinically meaningful difference between the diagnostic potential of sonication and the chemical-based biofilm dislodgment methods. This finding remained robust after adjusting for the administration of antibiotics prophylaxis, implementation of the polymerase chain reaction of sonicated fluid, and study quality.