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
. 2020 Dec 13;9(12):4031.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9124031.

Handling of Doubtful WBC Scintigraphies in Patients with Suspected Prosthetic Joint Infections

Affiliations

Handling of Doubtful WBC Scintigraphies in Patients with Suspected Prosthetic Joint Infections

Chiara Lauri et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Despite the application of EANM recommendations for radiolabelled white-blood-cells (WBC) scintigraphy, some cases still remain doubtful based only on visual analysis. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of semi-quantitative analysis and bone marrow scan (BMS) in solving doubtful cases. We retrospectively evaluated all [99mTc]HMPAO-WBC scintigraphies performed, in the last 7 years, for a suspected monolateral prosthetic joint infection (PJI). In doubtful cases, we used five different thresholds of increase of target-to-background (T/B) ratio, between delayed and late images, as criteria of positivity (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 30%). BMS were also analysed and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of different methods were calculated according to final diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were, respectively, 77.8%, 43.8% and 53.0% for the cut-off at 5%; 72.2%, 66.7% and 68.2% for the cut-off at 10%; 66.7%, 75.0% and 72.7% for the cut-off at 15%; 66.7%, 85.4% and 80.3% for the cut-off at 20%; 33.3%, 93.8% and 77.3% for the cut-off at 30%. BMS provided a significantly higher diagnostic performance than 5%, 10% and 15% thresholds. Conversely, we did not observe any statistically significant difference between BMS and the cut-off of more than 20%. Therefore, doubtful cases should be analysed semi-quantitatively. An increase in T/B ratio of more than 20% between delayed and late images, should be considered as a criterion of positivity, thus avoiding BMS.

Keywords: BMS; WBC scintigraphy; qualitative analysis; semi-quantitative analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Anterior views acquired 3 h and 20 h after i.v. injection of radiolabelled leukocytes, with times corrected for isotope decay and displayed by using absolute counts and the same intensity colour scale. Images show an example of the methodology used for drawing regions of interests (ROIs) for all the criteria (AF). In all doubtful cases, except for criterion B, irregular ROIs were automatically drawn on the target (T) of late images by fixing a threshold of 40% of maximum pixel, mirrored on the contralateral background (B) and copied on T and B of delayed images. For criterion B, due to the presence of bone marrow interference on the evaluation of the suspected area, ROIs were manually drawn on the whole prosthesis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart of patients included in the study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
These images show an example of false negative BMS in a patient with histologically confirmed infection of right hip prosthesis. From the left to right: the uptake on the right trochanter at 3 h does not change after 20 h at visual analysis therefore her WBC scintigraphy was classified as doubtful according to criterion “A”. However, we observed an increase of more than 20% at semi-quantitative analysis. The patient performed a bone marrow scan (BMS) (image on the right panel) that showed a congruent uptake with WBC thus excluding the infection. After surgery, an infection by St. Aureus was detected.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Proposed flow-chart for doubtful qualitative analysis of WBC scintigraphy.

References

    1. Brunenberg D.E., van Steyn M.J., Sluimer J.C., Bekebrede L.L., Bulstra S.K., Joore M.A. Joint recovery programme versus usual care: An economic evaluation of a clinical pathway for joint replacement surgery. Med. Care. 2005;43:1018–1026. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000178266.75744.35. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Watson H., Schmier J.K., Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J. Arthroplast. 2012;27:61–65. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Trampuz A., Zimmerli W. Prosthetic joint infections: Update in diagnosis and treatment. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2005;135:243–251. - PubMed
    1. Signore A., Sconfienza L.M., Borens O., Glaudemans A.W.J.M., Cassar-Pullicino V., Trampuz A., Winkler H., Gheysens O., Vanhoenacker F.M.H.M., Petrosillo N., et al. Consensus document for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: A joint paper by the EANM, EBJIS, and ESR (with ESCMID endorsement) Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2019;46:971–988. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-4263-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trampuz A., Hanssen A.D., Osmon D.R., Mandrekar J., Steckelberg J.M., Patel R. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am. J. Med. 2004;117:556–562. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.06.022. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources