Purposes: This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the sonication cultures according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria and to evaluate the effect of sonication on the antibiotic treatment of patients.
Methods: Sixty-four patients who were scheduled for revision hip or knee arthroplasties were included in the study. Aspiration fluid, tissue, and sonication cultures were performed from all patients and compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy. Other targets of the study were to investigate the rate of change in the antibiotic treatment.
Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained by the sonication method were 71.4%, 96.6%, 96.2%, 73.7%, and 82.8%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained after tissue sampling were 68.6%, 100%, 100.0%, 72.5%, and 82.8%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the sonication method and tissue culture in terms of sensitivity and specificity (p = 1.0). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of the fluid culture obtained by the aspiration method were 28.6%, 93.1%, 83.3%, 51.9%, and 57.8%, respectively. Treatment change was applied in 10 (15.6%) patients.
Conclusion: Our prospectively collected data revealed that sonication of the explants alone did not increase the sensitivity, and we found that sonicate culture sometimes changed the antibiotic therapy strategy in patients with periprosthetic joint infection because different microorganisms were detected.
Trial registration: This study was prospectively registered in a public trials registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , NCT04304885).
Keywords: Accuracy; Aseptic; Periprosthetic joint infection; Revision; Sensitivity; Sonication; Tissue culture.
© 2021. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.