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
Review
. 2022 Nov 25;12(12):2958.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12122958.

Role of Biomarkers in Periprosthetic Joint Infections

Serhat Akcaalan  1 , Halil Ibrahim Ozaslan  2   3 , Ceyhun Caglar  3 , Mehmet Emin Şimşek  4 , Mustafa Citak  5 , Mustafa Akkaya  2   3   5
Affiliations
Review

Role of Biomarkers in Periprosthetic Joint Infections

Serhat Akcaalan et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most serious complications after joint arthroplasty. The incidence rate of PJI after total joint replacement is 1-3%. Although there are different guidelines and diagnostic criteria used to diagnose PJI, diagnosing PJI is a highly difficult process for orthopedists. The current Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria are widely used for the diagnosis of PJI. These criteria include results from blood/synovial fluid tests, physical examination, and histological and microbiological analyses of intra-operative samples. However, there is currently no blood or synovial test that can definitively diagnose PJI. To make a more effective diagnosis of PJI, a large number of studies have explored and continue to investigate biomarkers. This review aims to provide general information about serum and synovial markers used for the diagnosis of PJI that may be used to create a database to guide researchers in new studies.

Keywords: biomarker; blood; periprosthetic joint infection; synovial fluid.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Premkumar A., Morse K., Levack A.E., Bostrom M.P., Carli A.V. Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Joint Disease: Prevention and Diagnosis. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2018;20:68. doi: 10.1007/s11926-018-0777-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nair R., Schweizer M.L., Singh N. Septic Arthritis and Prosthetic Joint Infections in Older Adults. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 2017;31:715–729. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2017.07.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zimmerli W., Trampuz A., Ochsner P.E. Prosthetic-joint infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:1645–1654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra040181. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kapadia B.H., Berg R.A., Daley J.A., Fritz J., Bhave A., Mont M.A. Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet. 2016;387:386–394. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61798-0. - 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.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources