2020•The Bone & Joint JournalRequires access

Low sensitivity of histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples in diagnosing postoperative spinal implant infection

Justus Bürger, Yannick Palmowski, Patrick Strube, Carsten Perka, Michael Putzier, Matthias Pumberger

Open publisher page 24 citations

Abstract

Aims To evaluate the histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples as a technique in the diagnosis of postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII). Methods This was a retrospective analysis. Patients who underwent revision spinal surgery at our institution were recruited for this study. PSII was diagnosed by clinical signs, histopathology, and microbiological examination of intraoperatively collected samples. Histopathology was defined as the gold standard. The sensitivity for histopathology was calculated. A total of 47 patients with PSII and at least one microbiological and histopathological sample were included in the study. Results PSII occurred in approximately 28% of the study population. Histopathology showed a sensitivity of 51.1% in the diagnosis of PSII. The most commonly found pathogens were Cutibacterium acnes and gram-positive staphylococci. Conclusion Histopathology has low sensitivity for detecting PSII. In particular, infections caused by low-virulence microorganisms are insufficiently detected by histopathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):899–903.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Aims To evaluate the histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples as a technique in the diagnosis of postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII). Methods This was a retrospective analysis. Patients who underwent revision spinal surgery at our institution were recruited for this study. PSII was diagnosed by clinical signs, histopathology, and microbiological examination of intraoperatively collected samples. Histopathology was defined as the gold standard. The sensitivity for histopathology was calculated. A total of 47 patients with PSII and at least one microbiological and histopathological sample were included in the study. Results PSII occurred in approximately 28% of the study population. Histopathology showed a sensitivity of 51.1% in the diagnosis of PSII. The most commonly found pathogens were Cutibacterium acnes and gram-positive staphylococci. Conclusion Histopathology has low sensitivity for detecting PSII. In particular, infections caused by low-virulence microorganisms are insufficiently detected by histopathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):899–903.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Aims To evaluate the histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples as a technique in the diagnosis of postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII). Methods This was a retrospective analysis. Patients who underwent revision spinal surgery at our institution were recruited for this study. PSII was diagnosed by clinical signs, histopathology, and microbiological examination of intraoperatively collected samples. Histopathology was defined as the gold standard. The sensitivity for histopathology was calculated. A total of 47 patients with PSII and at least one microbiological and histopathological sample were included in the study. Results PSII occurred in approximately 28% of the study population. Histopathology showed a sensitivity of 51.1% in the diagnosis of PSII. The most commonly found pathogens were Cutibacterium acnes and gram-positive staphylococci. Conclusion Histopathology has low sensitivity for detecting PSII. In particular, infections caused by low-virulence microorganisms are insufficiently detected by histopathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):899–903.

Key concepts: Histopathology, Histopathological examination, Gold standard (test), Medicine, Implant, Pathology, Surgery, Radiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Low sensitivity of histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples in diagnosing postoperative spinal implant infection — Research Paper | ScholarLens