A simple, cost-effective screening protocol to rule out periprosthetic infection.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 18165031.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2007.09.005.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The differential diagnosis of pain after total knee arthroplasty includes infection. Effective screening tools should have high sensitivity and are cost-effective. We evaluated 296 patients who underwent total knee revision at our institution. One hundred sixteen patients (39%) were classified as infected and 180 patients (61%) were considered noninfected. The mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) of the infected patients were 85 mm/h and 110 mg/L, respectively. The mean ESR and CRP of the noninfected patients were 22 mm/h and 7 mg/L, respectively. Five patients (4%) in the infected group had both normal ESR and CRP. Infection was suspected in all 5 patients, and an organism was cultured in 4 of the 5 cases. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP, when used in combination, serve as a useful screening tool in patients with a painful total knee arthroplasty.
Medical subject headings
- Knee Prosthesis
- Prosthesis-Related Infections
Anatomy
- knee