ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Accuracy and heterogeneity of histological analysis for detecting periprosthetic joint infections.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative frozen section histology is a cornerstone for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), yet its reported accuracy varies significantly. Previous studies have primarily focused on the accuracy of histopathological diagnosis for PJI, with analysis of heterogeneous sources remaining insufficient. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of frozen sections for PJI and, specifically, to analyze where the discrepancies may exist.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 171 patients (89 PJI, 82 Aseptic) undergoing revision hip or knee arthroplasty (2015-2023). PJI was defined strictly by International Consensus Meeting (ICM) major criteria to avoid incorporation bias. Aseptic failures were confirmed by a lack of infection signs and > 2 years of survival without antibiotic usage. Diagnostic performance of frozen section in the diagnosis of PJI was evaluated. Histological heterogeneity was quantified by analyzing the concordance rate across three distinct tissue specimens per case. We further compared diagnostic accuracy using different interpretation strategies: requiring either one, two, or three positive samples to confirm the diagnosis. Additionally, inter-observer agreement was assessed by two independent pathologists re-evaluating 81 sections.
resultsThe overall sensitivity was 71.9% (95% CI 61.4-80.9%) and specificity was 75.6% (95% CI 64.9-84.4%), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.738 (95% CI 0.672-0.803). Diagnostic performance was consistent between hip and knee revisions (p = 0.829). Notably, histological heterogeneity was prevalent: among confirmed PJI cases, only 44.0% (37/84) exhibited consistent positive results across all three specimens, whereas 73.7% of aseptic cases were consistently negative. Among the three specimens, if consider at least one specimen had >5 neutrophils per high power field in 5 high power fields (×400) as histology positive, the sensitivity and specificity was 70.2% (59.3-79.7%) and 73.7% (62.3-83.1%), respectively. Furthermore, inter-observer agreement was moderate (Kappa = 0.581), suggesting that diagnostic interpretation varies between pathologists.
conclusionIntraoperative frozen section analysis provides reliable diagnostic accuracy for patients meeting ICM Major Criteria, with consistent performance across hip and knee revisions. However, the significant heterogeneity existed in both surgical sampling and pathological interpretation. Standardization from the surgeon's intraoperative sampling to the pathologist's result interpretation stage may offer a potential solution to this problem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.