Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep;468(9):2387-91.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1216-9.

Should gram stains have a role in diagnosing hip arthroplasty infections?

Aaron J Johnson  1 , Michael G Zywiel, D Alex Stroh, David R Marker, Michael A Mont
Affiliations

Should gram stains have a role in diagnosing hip arthroplasty infections?

Aaron J Johnson et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Background: The utility of Gram stains in diagnosing periprosthetic infections following total hip arthroplasty has recently been questioned. Several studies report low sensitivity of the test, and its poor ability to either confirm or rule out infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. Despite this, many institutions including that of the senior author continue to perform Gram stains during revision total hip arthroplasty.

Questions/purposes: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of Gram stains from surgical-site samplings taken from procedures on patients with both infected and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties.

Methods: A review was performed on patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty between 2000 and 2007. Eighty-two Gram stains were performed on patients who had infected total hip arthroplasties and underwent revision procedures. Additionally, of the 410 revision total hip arthroplasties performed on patients who were confirmed infection-free, 120 Gram stains were performed. Patients were diagnosed as infected using multiple criteria at the time of surgery. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated from these Gram stain results.

Results: The Gram stain demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 9.8% and 100%, respectively. In this series, the Gram stain had a negative predictive value of 62%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and an accuracy of 63%.

Conclusions: Gram stains obtained from surgical-site samples had poor sensitivity and poor negative predictive value. Based on these findings, as well as those of other authors, we believe that Gram stains should no longer be considered for diagnosing infections in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Level of evidence: Level III, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Athanasou JA, Pandey R, DeSteiger R, Crook D, McLardy-Smith P. Diagnosis of infection by frozen section during revision arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1995;77:28–33. - PubMed
    1. Atkins BL, Athanosou N, Deeks JJ, Crook DWM, Simpson H, Peto TEA, McLardy-Smith P, Berendt AR. Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. J Clin Micro. 1998;36:2932–2939. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banit DM, Kaufer H, Fartford JM. Intraoperative frozen section analysis in revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;401:230–238. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200208000-00026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bauer TW, Parvizi J, Kobayashi N, Krebs V. Diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2006;88:869–882. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01149. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernard L, Lubbeke A, Stern R, Bru JP, Feron JM, Peyramond D, Denormandie P, Arvieux C, Chirouze C, Perronne C, Hoffmeyer P. Value of preoperative investigations in diagnosing prosthetic joint infection: retrospective cohort study and literature review. Scan J Infect Dis. 2004;36:410–416. doi: 10.1080/00365540410015240. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms