Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center?

Matthew W. Tetreault, Kenneth A. Estrera, Erdan Kayupov, Caroline Brander, Craig J. Della Valle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care center had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. Methods: One hundred thirteen patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell count, differential, and cultures. Results: Sixty-two of 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid white blood cell, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a computed tomography scan, and 3 (5%) a magnetic resonance imaging. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. Conclusions: The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalArthroplasty Today
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Tertiary Care Centers
Referral and Consultation
Joints
Infection
Synovial Fluid
Blood Sedimentation
Guidelines
C-Reactive Protein
Cell Culture Techniques
Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Serum
Leukocyte Count
Practice Guidelines
Arthroplasty
Hip
Leukocytes
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Physicians
Bone and Bones

Keywords

  • Arthroplasty infection
  • Clinical practice guidelines
  • Diagnosis
  • Infection workup
  • Periprosthetic joint infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center? / Tetreault, Matthew W.; Estrera, Kenneth A.; Kayupov, Erdan; Brander, Caroline; Della Valle, Craig J.

In: Arthroplasty Today, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tetreault, Matthew W. ; Estrera, Kenneth A. ; Kayupov, Erdan ; Brander, Caroline ; Della Valle, Craig J. / Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center?. In: Arthroplasty Today. 2017.
@article{57038c116e4a4d54a241dc58f9c2734b,
title = "Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center?",
abstract = "Background: Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care center had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. Methods: One hundred thirteen patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell count, differential, and cultures. Results: Sixty-two of 113 patients (55{\%}) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57{\%}). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60{\%}) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid white blood cell, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75{\%}) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18{\%}) had a bone scan, 6 (10{\%}) a computed tomography scan, and 3 (5{\%}) a magnetic resonance imaging. Twelve of the 113 patients (11{\%}) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. Conclusions: The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI.",
keywords = "Arthroplasty infection, Clinical practice guidelines, Diagnosis, Infection workup, Periprosthetic joint infection",
author = "Tetreault, {Matthew W.} and Estrera, {Kenneth A.} and Erdan Kayupov and Caroline Brander and {Della Valle}, {Craig J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.artd.2017.10.001",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Arthroplasty Today",
issn = "2352-3441",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center?

AU - Tetreault, Matthew W.

AU - Estrera, Kenneth A.

AU - Kayupov, Erdan

AU - Brander, Caroline

AU - Della Valle, Craig J.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Background: Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care center had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. Methods: One hundred thirteen patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell count, differential, and cultures. Results: Sixty-two of 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid white blood cell, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a computed tomography scan, and 3 (5%) a magnetic resonance imaging. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. Conclusions: The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI.

AB - Background: Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care center had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. Methods: One hundred thirteen patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell count, differential, and cultures. Results: Sixty-two of 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid white blood cell, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a computed tomography scan, and 3 (5%) a magnetic resonance imaging. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. Conclusions: The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI.

KW - Arthroplasty infection

KW - Clinical practice guidelines

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Infection workup

KW - Periprosthetic joint infection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033589364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033589364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.artd.2017.10.001

DO - 10.1016/j.artd.2017.10.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 29896556

AN - SCOPUS:85033589364

JO - Arthroplasty Today

JF - Arthroplasty Today

SN - 2352-3441

ER -