Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28290115›Full record

ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Sonication of Arthroplasty Implants Improves Accuracy of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Cultures.

Adam C Rothenberg, Alan E Wilson, John P Hayes, Michael J O'Malley, Brian A Klatt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Infection Following ACL Reconstruction: From Prevention to Treatment.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Identification of miRNA Biomarkers Associated With Staphylococcal Musculoskeletal Infections.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adam C RothenbergDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 5th Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. rothenbergac@upmc.edu.
Alan E WilsonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 5th Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
John P HayesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 5th Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Michael J O'MalleyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 5th Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Brian A KlattDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 5th Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence that sonication of explanted prosthetic hip and knee arthroplasty components with culture of the sonication fluid may enhance diagnostic sensitivity. Previous studies on the use of implant sonicate cultures have evaluated diagnostic thresholds but did not elaborate on the clinical importance of positive implant sonicate cultures in the setting of presumed aseptic revisions and did not utilize consensus statements on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis when defining their gold standard for infection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How do implant sonicate cultures compare with preoperative synovial fluid cultures and intraoperative tissue cultures in the diagnosis of PJI in both THA and TKA when compared against Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI? (2) Utilizing implant sonicate cultures, what is the relative prevalence of bacterial species identified in PJIs? (3) What is the incidence of positive implant sonicate cultures in the setting of presumed aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, and what treatments did they receive?

methodsBetween 2012 and 2016 we performed implant sonicate fluid cultures on surgically removed implants from 565 revision THAs and TKAs. Exclusion criteria including insufficient data to determine Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) classification, fungal-only cultures, and absence of reported colony-forming units decreased the number of procedures to 503. Procedures represented each instance of revision surgery (sometimes multiple in the same patient). Of those, a definitive diagnosis of infection was made using the MSIS criteria in 178 of 503 (35%), whereas the others (325 of 503 [65%]) were diagnosed as without infection. A total of 53 of 325 (16%) were considered without infection based on MSIS criteria but had a positive implant sonicate culture. Twenty-five of 53 (47%) of these patients were followed for at least 2 years. The diagnosis of PJI was determined using the MSIS criteria.

resultsSensitivity of implant sonicate culture was greater than synovial fluid culture and tissue culture (97% [89%-99%] versus 57% [44%-69%], p < 0.001; 97% [89%-99%] versus 70% [58%-80%], p < 0.001, respectively). The specificity of implant sonicate culture was not different from synovial fluid culture or tissue culture with the numbers available (90% [72%-97%] versus 100% [86%-100%], p = 0.833; 90% [72%-97%] versus 97% [81%-100%], p = 0.317, respectively). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most prevalent organism for both procedure types. In PJIs, the five most frequent bacteria identified by synovial fluid, tissue, and/or implant sonicate cultures were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (26% [89 of 267]), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (19% [65 of 267]), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (12% [43 of 267]), α-hemolytic Streptococci (5% [19 of 267]), and Enterococcus faecalis (5% [19 of 267]). Fifty-three of 325 (16%) presumed aseptic revisions had a positive sonication culture. Thirty-four percent (18 of 53) of culture-positive aseptic revision patients received antibiotic treatment for infection and 8% (4 of 53) underwent a secondary revision.

conclusionsThe routine use of implant sonicate cultures in arthroplasty revisions improves the diagnostic sensitivity for detecting the presence of bacteria in both clinical and occult infections. Future studies will need to refine colony-forming unit thresholds for determining clinical infection and indications for treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Indexed as

SonicationDevice RemovalHip ProsthesisHumansKnee ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID28290115
PMCPMC5449333
OpenAlexW2597044432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.