Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023
Diagnostic accuracy of sonication fluid cultures from prosthetic components in periprosthetic joint infection: an updated diagnostic meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peng Guanrong, Liu Qiang, Guan Zhenhua, Liu Min, Sun Xiaobo, Zhu Xingyang, Chen Jinlun, Feng Wenjun, Li Jie, Zeng Jianchun, Zhong Zhangrong, Zeng Yirong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and has a significant impact on patients and the national healthcare system. To date, the diagnosis of PJI is still confronted with dilemmas. The present study investigated the validity of sonication fluid culture (SFC) for removing implants in the diagnosis of PJI after joint replacement.
METHODS: From database establishment to December 2020, relevant literature was retrieved from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) to evaluate the diagnostic value of overall SFC for PJI.
RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible studies including 6302 patients were selected in this study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of SFC for PJI diagnosis were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.79), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96), 18.68 (95% CI, 11.92-29.28), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.29), and 85.65 (95% CI, 56.46-129.94), respectively, while the AUC was 0.92.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that SFC was of great value in PJI diagnosis, and the evidence of SFC on PJI was more favorable but not yet strong. Therefore, improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of SFC is still necessary, and the diagnosis of PJI continues to warrant a multiplex approach before and during a revision procedure.
METHODS: From database establishment to December 2020, relevant literature was retrieved from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) to evaluate the diagnostic value of overall SFC for PJI.
RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible studies including 6302 patients were selected in this study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of SFC for PJI diagnosis were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.79), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96), 18.68 (95% CI, 11.92-29.28), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.29), and 85.65 (95% CI, 56.46-129.94), respectively, while the AUC was 0.92.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that SFC was of great value in PJI diagnosis, and the evidence of SFC on PJI was more favorable but not yet strong. Therefore, improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of SFC is still necessary, and the diagnosis of PJI continues to warrant a multiplex approach before and during a revision procedure.