Low sensitivity of a-defensin (Synovasure) test for intra-operative exclusion of prosthetic joint infection

Periprosthetic Joint Infection Diagnosis: A Narrative Review

Replacement of native joints aims to restore patients' quality of life by relieving pain and improving joint function. While periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects a small percentage of patients, with an estimated incidence of 1-9% following primary total joint replacement, this postoperative complication necessitates a lengthy hospitalisation, extended antibiotic treatment and further surgery. It is highlighted that establishing the correct diagnosis of periprosthetic infections is critical in order for clinicians to avoid unnecessary treatments in patients with aseptic failure. Of note, the PJI diagnosis could not purely rely upon clinical manifestations given the fact that heterogeneity in host factors (e.g., age and comorbidities), variability in infection period, difference in anatomical location of the involved joint and discrepancies in pathogenicity/virulence of the causative organisms may confound the clinical picture. Furthermore, intra-operative contamination is considered to be the main culprit that can result in early or delayed infection, with the hematogenous spread being the most prevalent mode. To elaborate, early and hematogenous infections often start suddenly, whereas chronic late infections are induced by less virulent bacteria and tend to manifest in a more quiescent manner. Last but not least, viruses and fungal microorganisms exert a role in PJI pathogenesis.

Diagnostic value of open incisional biopsies in suspected, difficult-to-diagnose periprosthetic hip joint infection prior to revision surgery

INTRODUCTION

Prior to revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA), low-grade chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is often difficult to diagnose. We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of open incisional tissue biopsy for the prediction of PJI prior to THA revision in cases with culture-negative or dry tap joint aspirates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study includes 32 consecutive THA revision cases with high clinical suspicion of low-grade chronic PJI of the hip with culture-negative or dry tap joint aspirates and without systemic signs of infection. Open incisional biopsy (OIB) was performed prior to revision surgery. Periprosthetic tissue samples were analyzed by microbiology and histopathology for PJI. During definitive revision arthroplasty, identical diagnostics were repeated. Results from both procedures were compared and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of OIB for the final diagnosis were calculated.

RESULTS

Average age at revision was 69.3 ± 13.5 years. The sensitivity of the OIB procedure was 80% (microbiology), 69% (histology) and 82% for combined analyses (microbiology and histology). Specificity of OIB was 80% (microbiology), 94% (histology) and 60% for combined analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Open tissue biopsy performed in cases with culture-negative or inconclusive synovial fluid aspirates prior to revision of THA has limited diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of PJI. The procedure does not reliably close the diagnostic gap in a substantial number of cases. In this difficult patient population, risk of an open procedure may outweigh benefits and alternative less invasive methods should be considered for the preoperative diagnosis of PJI.

Synovial-Based Tests Outperform Serum Markers to Rule Out Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) provides successful results in most patients. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounts for up to 25% of failed TKAs needing revision. In clinical practice, consensus in diagnostic strategy for excluding or diagnosing PJI is still lacking. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to provide a simplified data-driven diagnostic strategy for aseptic knee and hip revision surgeons to rule out PJI in the outpatient clinic phase.

METHODS

A literature search in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane was conducted. Studies involving the diagnosis of PJI in patients with failed TKAs and total hip arthroplasties needing revision were identified. Only studies using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were included. Quality was assessed using MINORS criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for each diagnostic test identified in the included studies. Pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated using a bivariate model and plotted in summary receiver-operator characteristic curves. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated in a hypothetical sample of patients with a given disease prevalence.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, describing a total of 2974 patients. Quality scores ranged from 13 to 19. Meta-analysis could be performed on 7 unique diagnostic tests. Highest pooled sensitivity and specificity were demonstrated for α-defensin with values of 86% and 96.6%, respectively. α-defensin and white blood cell count in synovial fluid demonstrate highest negative predictive value values.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend, in a clinical setting with low-intermediate prevalence of PJI, performing arthrocentesis and joint fluid analysis using α-defensin and/or white blood cell count before revision TKA and revision total hip arthroplasty surgery to rule out PJI.

The combined measurement of synovial markers in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

INTRODUCTION

Currently there is no single test for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) that demonstrates an acceptable level of sensitivity. The aim of this pilot study was to identify a combination of biomarkers that could exclude periprosthetic infection prior to revision surgery in hip and knee arthroplasty. This would help in equivocal cases of PJI, such as those with low-virulence organisms, chronic low-grade infection or 'aseptic' loosening. Current research has focused on measuring the levels of biomarkers in the patient's synovial fluid, and these can be combined to improve accuracy.

METHODS

We selected synovial white cell count (SF-WCC) and C-reactive protein (SF-CRP), as they demonstrated an acceptable level of sensitivity and specificity which could be measured using existing equipment. One hundred and sixty-one synovial fluid samples from 134 patients were collected and analysed prospectively using calculated cut-off values of 10mg/l for SF-CRP and 3,000×10⁶/l for SF-WCC. Samples were deemed positive for infection when either of the SF-CRP or SF-WCC values were above the cut-off.

RESULTS

The combined test demonstrated a sensitivity greater than 98.5% and specificity above 80% in all samples analysed or looked at separately for total hip replacement and total knee replacement infections. All ten aspirates taken from chronically infected joints tested positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of SF-CRP and SF-WCC measurement has been shown to have high sensitivity of over 99% in detecting both acute and chronic PJI in both hip and knee arthroplasty. This ability of the test to exclude infection with a high degree of certainty will help in preoperative planning of PJIs.

The alpha defensin lateral flow test is effective in predicting eradication of periprosthetic joint infection after surgical debridement

The primary aim of this study was to assess the utility of the alpha defensin lateral flow (ADLF) test for predicting the eradication of PJI after surgical debridement. The secondary aim was to describe the reliability of ADLF test in diagnosis of PJI intra- operatively. A prospective observational study was conducted in three independent orthopaedic centres. Twenty-two patients undergoing revision surgery (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), single or two-stage revision) for PJI were recruited, 13 female and 9 male with an average age of 64 years. Samples were collected intra-operatively at the start of the first surgical procedure and then at the completion of debridement or prior to reimplantation depending on the operation performed. These samples were tested using ADLF and then sent for microbiological analysis. The ADLF result was then compared to the corresponding culture result in order to determine the diagnostic predictive accuracy. The reliability of ADLF test to predict eradication of infection after debridement of PJI was excellent for specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of which both where 100%, but had a poor sensitivity (14.3%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (62.5%). The reliability of ADLF test to predict PJI was poor with only a 50% sensitivity and specificity. The ADLF test has a high specificity and PPV for diagnosing eradication of infection after debridement. In contrast the ADLF testing appears to have poor diagnostic accuracy for PJI when used on intra-operative samples, prior to surgical intervention. No benefits or funds were received in suppo

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Synovial Fluid α-Defensin Lateral Flow Test in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

Objectives

There is a controversy on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of synovial fluid α‐defensin in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We performed this meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the α‐defensin lateral flow test in PJI.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched, and articles (up to January 2020) on the diagnosis of hip and knee PJIs using the α‐defensin Synovasure lateral flow test were included. The diagnostic accuracy of the α‐defensin lateral flow test in PJI was evaluated using meta‐analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and post‐test probabilities were calculated.

Results

Seventeen studies including 1443 cases were included. Meta‐analysis showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and a diagnostic odds ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.77, 0.88), 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.97), 16.86 (95% CI 11.67, 24.37), 0.17 (95% CI 0.13, 0.24) and 85.30 (95% CI 47.76, 152.35), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95, 0.98). Subgroup analysis also confirmed the high efficiency of α‐defensin Synovasure lateral flow test in diagnosing PJIs, irrespective of ethnicity. Fagan's nomogram analysis there was a high positive post‐test probability of 94% and a low negative post‐test probability of 15%.

Conclusions

We indicated that the α‐defensin lateral flow test had a high accuracy for diagnosing PJI. Large‐scale studies are needed to validate its significance in PJI diagnosis.

Validation of the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

The synovial fluid test for alpha defensin has been reported to have an excellent performance in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the lateral flow test for synovial fluid alpha defensin by using the methods of a formal diagnostic accuracy study and to compare its performance with that of the laboratory-based alpha defensin test for PJI.

METHODS

We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study of the index lateral flow immunoassay for synovial fluid alpha defensin relative to the reference 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) multicriteria definition of PJI. The study included a prospective multicenter cohort of outpatients with a failed hip or knee arthroplasty and a supplemental control cohort of fresh synovial fluid specimens submitted by physicians for diagnostic PJI testing.

RESULTS

Among 57 patients with PJI and 248 patients without PJI in the overall prospective patient cohort, the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test were 89.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5% to 96.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.2% to 97.2%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 94.3% (95% CI: 84.3% to 98.8%) after exclusion of 17 patients with grossly bloody aspirates (>1 million red blood cells/µL). Among the supplemental control cohort of fresh synovial fluid samples, including 65 samples from patients with PJI and 397 from patients without PJI, the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test were 98.5% (95% CI: 91.7% to 100.0%) and 98.2% (95% CI: 96.4% to 99.3%), respectively. A comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of the alpha defensin lateral flow test with those of the alpha defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the combined cohort did not demonstrate a significant difference in sensitivity (94.3% [95% CI: 88.5% to 97.7%] compared with 93.0% [95% CI: 87.1% to 96.7%]) or specificity (96.9% [95% CI: 95.3% to 98.1%] compared with 97.8% [95% CI: 96.4% to 98.8%]) (both p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate the solid diagnostic performance of the alpha defensin test and have resulted in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization of the lateral-flow test with an intended use as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assessing an alpha-defensin lateral flow device for diagnosing septic arthritis: reporting on a false-negative case and a false-positive case

Alpha-defensin (αD), an antimicrobial peptide released by neutrophils in response to bacterial pathogens, was proposed as a novel diagnostic biomarker in synovial fluid. Several reports have shown that αD can serve as a reliable biomarker in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We assessed whether αD could also serve to diagnosis of septic arthritis, a similarly difficult to diagnose PJI. To our knowledge, besides PJI, few reports exist assessing the utility of αD for septic arthritis. We have attempted to diagnose several cases of suspected septic arthritis using the Synovasure^® αD detection lateral flow device. We report a false-positive case and a false-negative case. The false-negative case we experienced was caused by Staphylococcus capitis, which is coagulase-negative, and possibly represents a low virulence micro-organism infection. The false-positive case was ultimately diagnosed as seronegative rheumatoid arthritis and possessed calcium pyrophosphate depositions. False positives have been suggested to occur in conditions where neutrophils are mobilised. As for PJI, in cases where diagnosis is difficult, αD can be an additional diagnostic indicator. However, making a definitive diagnosis using the αD lateral flow device alone was found to be difficult. The utility of αD in assessing septic arthritis is inconclusive; therefore, larger prospective clinical studies should be considered for a better assessment.

Current Clinical Methods for Detection of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection

Background: Currently, one of the most pressing problems in the field of orthopedic surgery is peri-prosthetic joint infection [PJI]. While there are numerous ways to detect PJI, current clinical detection methods differ across institutions and have varying criteria and protocols. Some of these methods include the Modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society system, culturing, polymerase chain reaction, the determination of the presence of certain biomarkers, testing for the presence of alpha defensin peptides, and leukocyte level testing. Methods: This review summarizes the most recent publications in the field of PJI detection to highlight current strengths as well as provide future directions to find the system for the quickest, cost-effective, and most accurate way to diagnose these types of infections. Results: The results of this literature review suggest that, while each method of diagnosis has its advantages, each has various drawbacks as well. Current methods can be expensive, take days to weeks to complete, be prone to contamination, and can produce ambiguous results. Conclusions: The findings in this review emphasize the need for a more comprehensive and accurate system for diagnosing PJI. In addition, the specific comparison of advantages and drawbacks can be useful for researchers and clinicians with goals of creating new diagnostic tests for PJIs, as well as in clinical scenarios to determine the correct treatment for patients.

A profile on the Synovasure alpha defensin test for the detection of periprosthetic infections

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians have waited a long time for a 'universal' marker that may help them distinguish infected from non-infected total joint arthroplasties when doubts persist after using classical clinical and biological signs of infection. In recent years, synovial fluid biomarkers including leukocyte esterase, alpha-defensins, and CRP have shown promising results for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the rational and the use of the Synovasure® alpha-defensin tests in patients with a suspicion of PJI. Using a systematic investigation by keywords, we looked for all citations (and the citations to these citations) of the selected papers.

EXPERT OPINION

The Synovasure® alpha-defensin tests demonstrate high potential for the diagnosis of PJIs. However, the data currently available also show that the universal marker of infection in the settings of PJIs is still to be discovered.

Detection of α-defensin in synovial fluids by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry as an innovative and cost-effective assay for improved definition of periprosthetic joint infections

RATIONALE

Detection of α-defensins in synovial fluid is gaining more and more interest in the field of correct diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). At present, they can be assessed by a quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay which is expensive and time-consuming and by a qualitative lateral flow immunoassay which is rapid but quite expensive and whose clinical sensitivity is debated. Thus, developing an alternative rapid, accurate, and low-cost assay for α-defensins is important to make α-defensins actionable as novel key clinical markers.

METHODS

Synovial fluid (SF) samples were obtained from 18 patients undergoing revision of primary joint arthroplasty. Of these, eight met the 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJIs, the remaining were classified as aseptic failure. Microbiological analysis and Synovasure assays were carried out on all samples. Sample preparation and the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) settings were adjusted to detect human neutrophil peptide (HNP)-1, -2 and -3 and to obtain optimal results in term of sensitivity and stability.

RESULTS

MALDI-TOF MS was able to detect HNPs in SF from septic patients. No signals for HNPs were detected in SF from aseptic failure. The limits of detection (LOD) were 2.5 and 1.25 μg/mL for HNP-2 and HNP-1, respectively. The turnaround time of the analysis is 20 min, and SF samples are stable at -20°C for up to 3 days. Assay sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were 100% for all parameters. On the same SF samples, the Synovasure assay showed lower sensitivity specificity, and PPV and NPV of 87.5%, 90%, 87.5% and 90%, respectively. Microbiological analysis of SF confirmed the presence of bacteria only in SF MSIS-positive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The reported MALDI-TOF MS assay was able to detect and differentiate HNPs in SF samples and showed a slightly better diagnostic accuracy than the Synovasure assay.

Does the Alpha Defensin ELISA Test Perform Better Than the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test for PJI Diagnosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty is a serious complication that causes severe morbidity and adds a major financial burden to the healthcare system. Although there is plenty of research on the alpha-defensin (AD) test, a meta-analysis consisting of only prospective studies investigating AD's diagnostic efficacy has not been performed. Additionally, some important subgroups such as THA and TKA have not been separately analyzed, particularly regarding two commonly used versions of the AD test, the laboratory-based (ELISA) and lateral-flow (LF).

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does the AD ELISA test perform better in the detection of PJI than the AD LF test, in terms of pooled sensitivity and specificity, when including prospective studies only? (2) Are there differences in sensitivity or specificity when using AD ELISA and AD LF tests for PJI diagnosis of THA or TKA PJI separately?

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included prospective studies describing the use of either AD test in the workup of pain after total joint arthroplasty (primary or revision, but not after resection arthroplasty). Fifteen studies (AD ELISA: 4; AD LF: 11) were included, with 1592 procedures. Subgroup data on THA and TKA could be retrieved for 1163 procedures (ELISA THA: 123; LF THA: 257; ELISA TKA: 228; LF TKA: 555). Studies not describing THA or TKA, those not using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria as the standard for determining the presence or absence of PJI, those not clearly reporting data for the AD test for the total cohort, and those describing data published in another study were excluded. Studies were not excluded based on follow-up duration; the MSIS criteria could be used within a few weeks, when test results were available. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. Study quality was generally good. The most frequent sources of bias were related to patient selection (such as unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria) and flow and timing (uncertainty in place and time of aspiration, for example). Heterogeneity was moderate to high; a bivariate random-effects model therefore was used. To answer both research questions, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for AD ELISA and LF test groups and THA and TKA subgroups, and were compared using z-test statistics and meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the AD ELISA and the AD LF for PJI diagnosis in the pooled cohorts (THA and TKA combined), in terms of sensitivity (90% versus 86%; p = 0.43) and specificity (97% versus 96%; p = 0.39). Differences in sensitivity for PJI diagnosis were found between the THA and TKA groups for the AD ELISA test (70% versus 94%; p = 0.008); pooled AD LF test sensitivity did not differ between THA and TKA (80% versus 87%; p = 0.20). No differences in specificity were found in either subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the AD ELISA and AD LF test can be used in clinical practice because both have high sensitivity and very high specificity for PJI diagnosis. The lower sensitivity found for diagnosis of PJI in THA for the AD ELISA test must be carefully interpreted because the pooled data were heterogenous and only two studies for this group were included. Future research should analyze TKAs and THAs separately to confirm or disprove this finding.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II diagnostic study.

Good accuracy of the alpha-defensin lateral flow test for hip periprosthetic joint infection: A pilot study in a retrospective cohort of 52 patients

BACKGROUND

The alpha-defensin lateral flow (ADLF) test is a new diagnostic tool for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Test accuracy for combined cohorts of hip and knee PJI has been reported to be good.

AIM

To assess the accuracy of the ADLF test for hip PJI, and to compare three different diagnostic criteria for PJI.

METHODS

A cohort of 52 patients was identified, with a painful or poorly functioning total hip- or hemi-arthroplasty, that underwent aspiration and a subsequent ADLF test. PJI was diagnosed with Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Furthermore, test specifics were compared with the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) and 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJI.

RESULTS

Using MSIS criteria, sensitivity was 100% (CI: 54%-100%) and specificity was 89% (CI: 76%-96%). Six true positives and 5 false positives were found, including one case of metallosis. Using EBJIS criteria, more PJIs were found (11 vs 6), sensitivity was lower (71%, CI: 42%-92%) and specificity was higher (97%, CI: 86%-100%), with 4 false negatives and one false positive result. Using 2018 ICM criteria, sensitivity was 91% (62%-100%) and specificity 100% (91%-100%). The results in this cohort are comparable to previous studies.

CONCLUSION

Overall test accuracy of the ADLF test was good in this cohort, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 89%. Using different PJI definition criteria, sensitivity and specificity changed slightly but overall accuracy remained around 90%. Using the ADLF test in metallosis cases can result in false positive results and should be performed with caution.

High-Performance Liquid Chromatography as a Novel Method for the Determination of α-Defensins in Synovial Fluid for Diagnosis of Orthopedic Infections

The α-defensins (AD) present in synovial fluid have been regarded as constituting the most accurate periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) biomarker. The methods most commonly used for estimating AD as a biomarker are the qualitative Synovasure^® PJI tests, based on the technique of lateral flow, and quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Here, we propose a novel test based on detecting α-defensins in synovial fluid by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Synovial fluid was collected from 157 patients diagnosed with PJI, infectious arthritis (IA), arthrosis, reactive arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. AD concentrations in the fluid were determined by HPLC, and these same samples were used for additional diagnostic analyses. The results were statistically processed to calculate cutoff concentrations for PJI and IA. HPLC testing showed a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 92% for diagnosis of PJI, and a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 87% for diagnosis of IA. Using HPLC, we detected in synovial fluid a combination of three α-defensins: human neutrophil peptides HNP1, HNP2, and HNP3. All measured AD concentration values shown in this work refer to the sum of these three individual concentrations. Our study shows that the HPLC method meets the conditions for measuring precise concentrations of the sum of AD and can be recommended as part of a diagnostic array for PJI and IA diagnostics. By this method, we have verified that higher levels of AD in synovial fluid can also be seen in rheumatoid illnesses, crystal arthropathies, and reactive arthritis.

Reliability of synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leukocyte esterase in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Synovial fluid proteins had been applied as diagnostic biomarkers for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in recent research papers. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic efficiency of synovial fluid α-defensin and leukocyte esterase (LE) for PJI.

METHODS

We conducted our systematic review by searching the keywords in online databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Elsevier, Springer, and Web of Science from the time of database inception to October 2018. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who have undergone knee, hip, or shoulder joint replacements; α-defensin or leukocyte esterase (LE strip) of synovial fluid was detected as the biomarker for PJI diagnosis; and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) or utilizing a combination of clinical data was considered as the gold standard. Diagnostic parameters including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary of receiver operating characteristics curve (AUSROC) were calculated for the included studies to evaluate the synovial fluid α-defensin and LE for PJI diagnosis.

RESULTS

After full-text review, 28 studies were qualified for this systematic review, 16 studies used α-defensin and the other 12 were conducted using LE strip. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of LE strip were 87% (95% CI 84-90%), 96% (95% CI 95-97%), and 170.09 (95% CI 97.63-296.32), respectively, while the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of α-defensin were 87% (95% CI 83-90%), 97% (95% CI 96-98%), and 158.18 (95% CI 74.26-336.91), respectively. The AUSROC for LE strip and α-defensin were 0.9818 and 0.9685, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both LE strip and α-defensin of synovial fluid provide rapid and convenient diagnosis for PJI. Sensitivity of α-defensin and LE strip are the same, while both these two methods have high specificity in clinical practice.

Synovial fluid α-defensin in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the lateral flow test is an effective intraoperative detection method

Background

Synovial fluid α-defensin is a valuable biomarker for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Its diagnostic value for PJI has been widely evaluated recently, but results are inconsistent, especially for different test methods. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of laboratory-based immunoassay and lateral flow testing for the detection of α-defensin against hip and knee PJI.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles on the diagnostic accuracy of α-defensin for PJI published up to September 2018. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated for the evaluation of the diagnostic value of α-defensin for PJI.

Results

Nineteen studies were included. Eleven evaluated laboratory-based immunoassay, and 10 evaluated the lateral flow test results. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, AUC, PLR, NLR, and DOR of laboratory-based immunoassays were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.99), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–1.00), 35.0 (95% CI 18.5–66.2), 0.04 (95% CI 0.02–0.11), and 811 (95% CI 220–2990), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, AUC, PLR, NLR, and DOR of the lateral flow test were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), 0.96 (95% CI 0.93–0.98), 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97), 21.2 (95% CI 11.7–38.5), 0.14 (95% CI 0.10–0.21), and 148 (95% CI 64–343), respectively.

Conclusions

Laboratory-based immunoassay of α-defensin is highly accurate for the diagnosis of hip and knee PJI. The lateral flow test is less sensitive but still a useful intraoperative detection tool for PJI.

Laboratory diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infections: Current concepts and present status

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of total joint arthroplasty for both a microbiologist and an Arthroplasty surgeon with respect to diagnosis and management. The various investigations used for diagnosis of PJI based on different reference criteria have their own fallacies. Amongst the newer biomarkers evaluated to strengthen the diagnosis of PJI, Alpha defensins has been found to be a useful synovial fluid biomarker. In this review, we have discussed the various laboratory investigations, their benefits and shortcomings for the diagnosis of PJI. Other newer diagnostic methods like molecular methods and modified culture techniques to increase the performance characteristics for the diagnosis of PJI have also been presented.