Skip to main content

Invited reply to the letter to the editor by McNally et al., 2021

A Correspondence to this article was published on 08 March 2021

A Research article to this article was published on 03 June 2020

Peer Review reports

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments on our paper Morgenstern et al. 2020 [1]. The detection of microbial heat production (microcalorimetry) has been studied for several biological and medical applications and has shown superior sensitivity and/or shorter time to microbial detection compared to conventional culture [2,3,4]. In our study we aimed to evaluate the performance of microcalorimetric analysis of synovial fluid in comparison to synovial fluid culture for the preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

In their Letter to the Editor (McNally et al. 2021), the authors raised their concern over the use of unvalidated definition criteria of PJI, which could potentially lead to overdiagnosing of infection. It is correct that the definition criteria we used for this study are highly sensitive and could be prone to over-diagnosing rather than underdiagnosing infection. Still, this classification system is presently being used in the clinical routine in many institutions (including ours) and has also been employed in several other studies [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

In the last years, various PJI diagnostic criteria have been proposed and used by different authors. In the time our prospective study was conducted (2014 to 2015), the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria [17], the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria [18] and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) criteria [19] were the most popular criteria available for PJI definition. However, we believed that these criteria were not appropriate for our study as they present crucial drawbacks. For instance, IDSA criteria do not consider an important criterion for PJI, namely the synovial fluid leukocyte count, which is inappropriate for a study that focuses on the preoperative investigation of synovial fluid. The 2013 ICM criteria were mainly based on expert opinion and studies with a low quality of evidence [20]. Furthermore, sonication of removed implants, which represents the most sensitive intraoperative method to detect low-virulent pathogens [21], was not considered neither in ICM nor in IDSA criteria, which consequently made them miss a considerable number of PJI [9, 10]. In fact, in a cohort of 136 patients with a painful prosthetic joint, Huard et al. [10] reported 41 PJI applying MSIS criteria, 50 with IDSA and 68 with proposed European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) (our institutional) criteria, confirming the results published by Renz et al. [9]. ICM criteria predominantly missed those infections caused by low-virulent pathogens [9]. Another study showed that presence of a single minor criterion (but not fulfilling the 2013 ICM criteria for PJI) was associated with worse outcome of total joint revision [22]. These observations resulted in the modification of the ICM PJI definition criteria in 2018 [23].

In regard to the other comments, we are not ignoring the value of preoperative synovial biopsies as claimed by McNally et al. Still, we believe that this invasive procedure (requiring arthroscopy or open biopsy) should be performed only exceptionally, i.e. in case of a dry tap or inconclusive arthrocentesis results, as it poses intervention-related risk of additional infection. In addition, arthroscopically collected samples are probably not most representative for diagnosis of low-grade infection, as the biofilm location at the prosthesis-bone interface cannot be easily reached. The additional risk of performing a biopsy needs to be weighed against the moderate gain of additional information compared to only performing arthrocentesis. Some institutions still perform open biopsy as part of diagnostic routine, which, in our opinion, should be done only in exceptional cases with a good rational indication.

The optimal cutoff value for synovial fluid leukocyte count that allows discriminating chronic PJI (occurring after > 4 weeks postoperatively or with a symptom duration of > 4 weeks) from aseptic failure has been suggested by different investigators ranging from 1100/μl to 4200/μl. When considering studies reporting a realistic rate of low-virulent causing pathogens (e.g. coagulase-negative staphylococci), referred cutoff values were below 2000/μl [24, 25]. Regarding the histopathology [26], the result of 1 to 10 granulocytes per high-power field was used for histopathological diagnosis of PJI. The cutoff of 2 granulocytes per high-power field in this study based on the recent report of Krenn et al. [27] demonstrating a cut-off of 23 granulocytes in a total of 10 high-power fields as optimal threshold, which proportionally translates to 2 granulocytes per high-power field (averaged over 10 fields).

Based on these facts, we firmly disagree with McNally et al.’s assertion that our study could be misleading or biased. The definition criteria in our study were delineated in the Methods section and individually listed in the Results section, which allows for an adequate interpretation of the results by the reader. We agree that by using highly sensitive criteria to define infection, the performance of all evaluated diagnostic tests could be underestimated. However, as the performance of all diagnostic tests was assessed using the same definition criteria, the alleged “bias” would therefore equally apply to all the evaluated diagnostic methods without a selective disadvantage to a particular method. In fact, the positivity rate of synovial fluid culture and microcalorimetry in the present study was equal (39 and 39%, respectively), as it was in a previous study investigating culture and microcalorimetry of synovial fluid of native joint for the diagnosis of infection (46 and 46%, respectively) [3].

Most recently, the PJI definition criteria of the EBJIS have been published by most of the authors that redacted the Letter we are herewith replying to [28]. Our institutional criteria were presented by one author of our group (AT) during the 36th Annual Meeting of EBJIS in 2017, and thereafter have been referred to in many studies as “proposed EBJIS criteria” [5,6,7,8,9,10, 12,13,14,15,16, 28, 29]). The meeting recommended a reappraisal of the definition categories which resulted in the publication of the official EBJIS criteria in 2021 [28]. In fact, in the recently published paper by EBJIS [28], the described confirmative definition criteria represent modified versions of our institutional definition criteria.

We believe that the new EBJIS definition criteria are robust and superior to previously used criteria (MSIS, ICM, IDSA). We regret that our previous contribution in the development of the PJI definition criteria was not appropriately credited in the recent publication of McNally et al. [28] by indicating the original publications.

In conclusion, PJI definition criteria are a matter of continuous debate and there is not one set of criteria that has been universally accepted or validated. Despite some investigators claim to use validated PJI definition criteria [23, 29, 30], none of these criteria were appropriately validated on an independent large cohort with long-term follow-up. Considering patient conditions and expectations, microbiology, intervention-related risks, ethical considerations and functional outcome, the treating physician needs to decide individually whether to use highly sensitive criteria (and thereby overdiagnose infection with a risk of overtreatment) or highly specific criteria (and thereby miss some infections, potentially resulting in subsequent treatment failure with all related consequences). In many institutions (including ours), highly sensitive definition criteria are used as clinical decision support tool. We must accept that it is not always possible to establish a clear diagnosis of infection and aseptic failure, with a remaining “gray zone” of inconclusive cases. Therefore, each case must be individually evaluated before deciding on the most appropriate therapy, independently from the definition criteria employed.

We hope that this response will contribute to the discussions on finding the best PJI definition criteria in the future. For full transparency, raw data of this study are provided as Supplementary Material.

Yours sincerely,

Christian Morgenstern.

Nora Renz.

Sabrina Cabric.

Elena Maiolo.

Carsten Perka.

Andrej Trampuz.

Availability of data and materials

For full transparency, raw data of this study are provided as Supplementary Material.

Abbreviations

EBJIS:

European Bone and Joint Infection Society

IDSA:

Infectious Disease Society of America

ICM:

International Consensus Meeting

MSIS:

Musculoskeletal Infection Society

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

Bibliography

  1. 1.

    Morgenstern C, Cabric S, Maiolo E, et al. Thermogenic diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection by microcalorimetry of synovial fluid. BMC Musculoskelet Dis. 2020;21:345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Butini ME, Moreno MG, Czuban M, et al. Real-time antimicrobial susceptibility assay of planktonic and biofilm bacteria by isothermal microcalorimetry. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1214:61–77.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Morgenstern C, Renz N, Cabric S, Perka C, Trampuz A. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction and microcalorimetry in synovial fluid: can pathogen-based detection assays improve the diagnosis of septic arthritis? J Rheumatol. 2018;45:1588–93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Borens O, Yusuf E, Steinrücken J, Trampuz A. Accurate and early diagnosis of orthopedic device-related infection by microbial heat production and sonication. J Orthop Res. 2013;31:1700–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yermak K, Karbysheva S, Perka C, et al. Performance of synovial fluid Dlactate for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a prospective observational study. J Inf Secur. 2019;79:123–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sigmund IK, et al. Is the enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay more accurate than the lateral flow alpha defensin test for diagnosing Periprosthetic joint infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:1645–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Morgenstern C, et al. Synovial fluid multiplex PCR is superior to culture for detection of low-virulent pathogens causing periprosthetic joint infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;90:115–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Karbysheva S, Grigoricheva L, Golnik V, Popov S, Renz N, Trampuz A. Influence of retrieved hip- and knee-prosthesis biomaterials on microbial detection by sonication. Eur Cell Mater. 2019;37:16–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Renz N, et al. Alpha defensin lateral flow test for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Not a screening but a confirmatory test. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:742–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Huard M, Detrembleur C, Poilvache H, et al. Alpha Defensin: a diagnostic accuracy depending on the infection definition used. J Arthroplast. 2020;35(5):1355–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pérez-Prieto D, Portillo M, et al. C-reactive protein may misdiagnose prosthetic joint infections, particularly chronic and low-grade infections. Int Orthop. 2017;41(7):1315–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gellert M, Hardt S, Köder K, Renz N, Perka C, Trampuz A. Biofilm-active antibiotic treatment improves the outcome of knee periprosthetic joint infection: results from a 6-year prospective cohort study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(4):105904.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Akgün D, Perka C, Trampuz A, Renz N. Outcome of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections caused by pathogens resistant to biofilm-active antibiotics: results from a prospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(5):635–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Karczewski D, Winkler T, Renz N, Trampuz A, Lieb E, Perka C, Müller M. A standardized interdisciplinary algorithm for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(2):132–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Karczewski D, Winkler T, Perka C, Müller M. The preoperative microbial detection is no prerequisite for the indication of septic revision in cases of suspected Periprosthetic joint infection. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:1729605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Suren C, Feihl S, Cabric S, Banke IJ, Haller B, Trampuz A, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Prodinger PM. Improved pre-operative diagnostic accuracy for low-grade prosthetic joint infections using second-generation multiplex polymerase chain reaction on joint fluid aspirate. Int Orthop. 2020;44(9):1629–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the International consensus on periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:1450e2.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):2992–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:e1–e25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Saleh A, George J, Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Mont MA, Higuera-Rueda CA. The quality of diagnostic studies in Periprosthetic joint infections: can we do better? J Arthroplast. 2019;34:2737–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Trampuz A, et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:654–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Staats K, Kolbitsch P, Sigmund IK, Hobusch GM, Holinka J, Windhager R. Outcome of total hip and total knee revision arthroplasty with minor infection criteria: a retrospective matched-pair analysis. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:1266–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, et al. The 2018 Definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:1309–1314.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dinneen A, Guyot A, Clements J, Bradley N. Synovial fluid white cell and differential count in the diagnosis or exclusion of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:554–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RS, et al. Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1637–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1645–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Krenn V, Morawietz L, Perino G. Revised histopathological consensus classification of joint implant related pathology. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210:779–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    McNally M, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Chen AF, Soriano A, Vogely HC, Clauss M, Higuera CA, Trebše R. The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2021 Jan;103-B(1):18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Romanò CL, Petrosillo N, Argento G, et al. The role of imaging techniques to define a peri-prosthetic hip and knee joint infection: multidisciplinary consensus statements. J Clin Med. 2020;9:E2548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Abdelaziz H, Rademacher K, Suero EM, et al. The 2018 international consensus meeting minor criteria for chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection: validation from a single center. J Arthroplast. 2020;35:2200–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors compiled, edited and approved the contents of this invited reply.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Morgenstern.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

N/R

Consent for publication

N/R

Competing interests

None

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morgenstern, C., Renz, N., Cabric, S. et al. Invited reply to the letter to the editor by McNally et al., 2021. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22, 256 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04118-7

Download citation