Abstract
目的
探讨99mTc-MDP三相骨扫描(three-phase bone scintigraphy,TPBS)联合C反应蛋白(C-reaction protein,CRP)对假体周围感染(periprosthetic joint infection,PJI)的诊断效能。
方法
回顾分析2017年1月—2024年1月行人工关节翻修手术且术前接受TPBS检查的198例患者临床资料。其中男77例,女121例;年龄24~92岁,平均63.74岁。髋关节置换90例,膝关节置换108例。根据2013年美国肌肉与骨骼感染学会(MSIS)标准诊断PJI。计算灵敏度、特异度、准确性、阴性预测值(negative predictive value,NPV)和阳性预测值(positive predict value,PPV),采用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线比较3种方式的诊断效能,并以曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC)评价其诊断效能。
结果
根据2013年MSIS标准,116例确诊为PJI,余82例为无菌性松动。TPBS、CRP、TPBS-CRP联合诊断的PJI例数分别为125、109、137例,无菌性松动分别为73、89、61例。TPBS-CRP联合诊断PJI的灵敏度、准确性、NPV和PPV均高于TPBS和CRP,但特异度低于TPBS和CRP;ROC曲线分析进一步表明,TPBS-CRP联合诊断的AUC值优于TPBS和CRP。TPBS诊断为假阳性患者的骨缺损严重程度和症状持续时间均差于真阴性患者(P<0.05),但二者假体生存时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。采用TPBS、CRP、TPBS-CRP诊断为PJI的患者中,诊断前2周分别有49、35、54例接受过抗生素治疗,TPBS和TPBS-CRP诊断前采用抗生素治疗和未治疗的诊断准确性比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而CRP诊断前采用抗生素治疗的诊断准确性显著低于未治疗患者(P<0.05)。
结论
TPBS、CRP鉴别PJI和无菌性松动的特异度有限。TPBS-CRP联合诊断方法可协同局部骨代谢特征与全身炎症反应,实现更高诊断准确性;但对于严重骨缺损和症状持续时间较长的患者应谨慎考虑。
Keywords: 三相骨扫描, C反应蛋白, 假体周围感染, 联合诊断, 抗生素
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of 99mTc-MDP three-phase bone scintigraphy (TPBS) combined with C-reactive protein (CRP) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
Methods
The clinical data of 198 patients who underwent revision surgery of artificial joint between January 2017 and January 2024 and received TPBS examination before surgery were retrospectively analyzed. There were 77 males and 121 females with an average age of 63.74 years ranging from 24 to 92 years. There were 90 cases of hip arthroplasty and 108 cases of knee arthroplasty. PJI was diagnosed according to the 2013 American Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) standard diagnostic criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predict value (PPV) were calculated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare the diagnostic performance of the three methods, and the area under curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance.
Results
According to the 2013 MSIS criteria, 116 cases were diagnosed as PJI, and the remaining 82 cases were aseptic loosening. The cases of PJI diagnosed by TPBS, CRP, and TPBS-CRP were 125, 109, and 137 respectively, and the cases of aseptic loosening were 73, 89, and 61 respectively. The sensitivity, accuracy, NPV, and PPV of TPBS-CRP combination in the diagnosis of PJI were higher than those of TPBS and CRP, but the specificity was lower than that of TPBS and CRP. ROC curve analysis further showed that the AUC value of TPBS-CRP combination was better than that of TPBS and CRP. The severity of bone defect and the duration of symptoms in patients with false positive TPBS diagnosis were worse than those in patients with true negative TPBS diagnosis (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the survival time of prosthesis between the two groups (P>0.05). Among the patients diagnosed with PJI by TPBS, CRP, and TPBS-CRP, 49, 35, and 54 patients had received antibiotic treatment 2 weeks before diagnosis, respectively. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of TPBS and TPBS-CRP before diagnosis between patients treated with and without antibiotics and those not treated (P>0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of antibiotic therapy before CRP diagnosis was significantly lower than that of untreated patients (P<0.05).
Conclusion
TPBS and CRP have limited specificity in differentiating PJI from aseptic loosening. The TPBS-CRP combination diagnostic method can synergize the local bone metabolic characteristics and systemic inflammatory response to achieve higher diagnostic accuracy, but caution should be exercised in patients with severe bone defects and longer symptom duration.
Keywords: Three-phase bone scintigraphy, C-reactive protein, periprosthetic joint infection, combined diagnosis, antibiotic
假体周围感染(periprosthetic joint infection,PJI)作为人工关节置换术后最具破坏性的并发症之一,发生率为1%~2%[1-3],可显著增加患者死亡率。早期、准确诊断在PJI疾病管理中至关重要。然而,目前诊断PJI仍然具有挑战性,一方面是因缺乏完美的诊断测试,另一方面是由于部分PJI患者在早期缺乏典型症状,难以与假体无菌性松动进行鉴别。
近年来,放射性核素骨扫描逐渐被应用于PJI的诊断中,其可以敏感地反映假体周围活跃的骨代谢情况,准确定位感染或松动部位,被视为评估骨骼感染的有效工具[4-5]。Verberne等[6-7]研究发现,99mTc-HMPAO标记白细胞显像和氟代脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层成像(FDG-PET)在PJI的诊断中展现出良好的灵敏度和特异度。但是其需要精密仪器及高昂检测费用,难以作为诊断PJI的常规筛查工具。三项骨扫描(three-phase bone scintigraphy,TPBS)在诊断PJI时具有较高灵敏度,且简便、可靠、经济,可作为PJI的常规筛查,但是其特异度较低[8-9]。C反应蛋白(C-reactive protein,CRP)作为一种急性时相反应蛋白能够反映体内炎症的整体水平,在PJI的诊断中具有重要价值,但其通常难以作为确诊PJI的唯一指标[10-12]。
基于此,本研究联合TPBS和CRP用于诊断PJI,通过整合局部骨代谢特征和系统性炎症生物标志物,从两个不同维度对患者的炎症状态进行精准评估。现回顾性分析2017年1月—2024年1月于本院行翻修手术且术前接受TPBS的患者临床资料,旨在分析TPBS和CRP在PJI诊断中的联合应用价值,为PJI的诊断提供依据。报告如下。
1. 临床资料
1.1. 一般资料
患者纳入标准:① 人工关节置换术后疼痛患者;② 有明确手术指征且能耐受翻修手术者;③ 于人工关节翻修术前接受TPBS检查。排除标准:① 患者在假体区域有其他已知的疼痛原因(除无菌性松动或感染外),如假体脱位或假体周围骨折等;② 妊娠期或哺乳期妇女;③ 合并恶性肿瘤者;④ 临床资料不完整。2017年1月—2024年1月共198例患者符合选择纳入研究。
本组男77例,女121例;年龄24~92岁,平均63.74岁。身体质量指数15~43 kg/m2,平均26.03 kg/m2。其中髋关节置换90例,膝关节置换108例。置换术后疼痛持续时间0.1~132个月,中位时间6.5个月。假体生存时间3~270个月,平均79.6个月。CPR水平0.8~100 mg/L,中位水平11.90 mg/L。所有患者入院完善X线片、CT、MRI、TPBS及血清学检查。
1.2. PJI诊断方法
1.2.1. 临床诊断标准
术中打开关节囊暴露关节间隙后,用无菌注射器抽取关节液,并在3处以上炎症表现明显的部位取炎性组织样本送病理学检查及病原菌培养。根据2013年美国肌肉与骨骼感染协会(MSIS)[11]提出的感染诊断标准,诊断PJI需符合以下其中一项:① 存在与假体相通的窦道,或者假体直接可见;② 两次独立从受累人工关节采集的组织或关节液标本中培养出同一病原体;③ 满足以下5项标准中的3项:a. 血清红细胞沉降率或CRP水平升高;b. 关节液白细胞计数升高或白细胞脂酶试验呈阳性(++);c. 关节液中性粒细胞百分比升高;d. 假体周围组织病理学检查结果阳性;e. 单次关节液培养出病原菌。符合Engh等[13]提出的标准或术中直视下见假体松动即可诊断为假体松动,结合MSIS标准判断是否为无菌性松动。
1.2.2. TPBS诊断
显像方法:198例患者术前均采用Siemens Symbia Evo Excel双探头单光子发射计算机断层扫描仪(Siemens公司,德国)完成放射性核素显像。受检前30~60 min饮水300~500 mL,检查前排尿。患者仰卧于检查床上,一侧手上举,经另一侧肘静脉注射99mTc-MDP,即刻采集血流相(3 s/帧,连续采集40帧),5 min后再采集血池相,3 h后进行延迟相,前位、后位采集。由2位高年资核医学医师共同分析TPBS图像,意见存在分歧时由第3位经验丰富的医师进行判定。
TPBS诊断标准:血流相和血池相假体周围可见放射性示踪剂异常浓聚,延迟相可见假体周围弥漫性示踪剂异常浓聚,提示为PJI;血流相和血池相假体周围未见示踪剂异常浓聚,延迟相见假体周围骨受应力改变导致的点状、条状或片状示踪剂异常浓聚,提示为假体松动(图1)。
图 1.
TPBS images of a 62-year-old female patient with pain after bilateral total knee arthroplasty (PJI in the right knee and aseptic loosening in the left knee)
患者,女,62岁,双膝关节置换术后疼痛(诊断为右膝PJI、左膝无菌性松动)TPBS显像图
a、b. 血流相(a)和血池相(b)示右膝均可见放射性分布浓聚影,左膝未见明显放射性浓聚;c. 延迟相示双膝均可见放射性分布浓聚影
a, b. Blood flow phase (a) and blood pool phase (b) showed that there was increased radiotracer uptake in the right knee, while no obvious increased uptake was observed in the left knee; c. Delayed phase showed that the increased radiotracer uptake was noted in both knees

1.2.3. CRP诊断标准
采用全自动免疫透视比浊法测定血清中CRP水平。CRP>10 mg/L被诊断为PJI,CRP≤10 mg/L则可排除PJI,诊断为无菌性松动。
1.2.4. TPBS-CRP联合诊断标准
TPBS诊断为PJI、CRP>10 mg/L为阳性结果,反之为阴性结果;当两者之一为阳性结果时,可诊断为PJI;均为阴性结果时,认为PJI被排除,诊断为无菌性松动。
1.3. 检测指标
统计TPBS、CRP及TPBS-CRP联合诊断的真阳性(true-positive,TP)、真阴性(true-negative,TN)、假阳性(false-positive,FP)、假阴性(false-negative,FN)例数。同时计算灵敏度、特异度、准确性、阴性预测值(negative predictive value,NPV)和阳性预测值(positive predict value,PPV)。
比较TPBS诊断为FP和TN患者的骨缺损程度、症状持续时间和假体生存时间。骨缺损分型:采用安德森骨科研究所(AORI)分型[14]评价膝关节骨缺损,其中Ⅰ型为轻度骨缺损,Ⅱ型为中度骨缺损,Ⅲ型为重度骨缺损。采用Papprosky分型法[15-16]评估髋关节缺损,其中髋臼侧骨缺损Ⅰ型为轻度,Ⅱ型为中度,Ⅲ型为重度;股骨侧骨缺损Ⅰ型为轻度,Ⅱ型为中度,Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型为重度。最终分型咦最严重骨缺损分度为准。
另外,比较3种方式诊断为PJI的患者中,诊断前2周接受抗生素治疗与否对诊断准确性的影响。
1.4. 统计学方法
采用SPSS25.0统计软件进行分析。计量资料经Kolmogorov-Smirnov正态性检验,符合正态分布的数据以均数±标准差表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验;不符合正态分布的数据以M(Q1,Q3)表示,组间比较采用非参数Wilcoxon秩和检验。计数资料以频数表示,组间比较采用列联表卡方检验。绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线,比较不同诊断方式的诊断效能,并以曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC)评价其诊断效能。AUC值用于判定指标的诊断价值:AUC≥0.9为优,0.8≤AUC<0.9为良,0.7≤AUC<0.8为可,0.5< AUC<0.7为差。检验水准取双侧α=0.05。
2. 结果
根据MSIS标准,116例(44髋、72膝)确诊为PJI,余82例(46髋、36膝)为无菌性松动,见表1。TPBS、CRP、TPBS-CRP联合诊断的PJI例数分别为125例(40髋、85膝)、109例(37髋、72膝)、137例(47髋、90膝),无菌性松动分别为73例(50髋、23膝)、89例(53髋、36膝)、61例(43髋、18膝)。
表 1.
Clinical data of patients with PJI and aseptic loosening
PJI患者和无菌性松动患者临床资料
| 临床资料 Clinical data |
PJI患者(n=116) PJI patients (n=116) |
无菌性松动患者(n=82) Aseptic loosening patients (n=82) |
总数(n=198) Total (n=198) |
| 年龄(x±s,岁) | 62.91±13.23 | 64.93±13.41 | 63.74±13.31 |
| 性别(男/女,例) | 57/59 | 20/62 | 77/121 |
| BMI(x±s,kg/m2) | 25.87±3.97 | 26.28±5.52 | 26.03±4.67 |
| 部位(髋/膝,例) | 44/72 | 46/36 | 90/108 |
| CRP [M(Q1,Q3),mg/L)] | 19.95(9.70,31.50) | 4.55(2.88,11.85) | 11.90(4.35,21.08) |
| 症状持续时间 [M(Q1,Q3),月] | 4(1,12) | 12(5,36) | 6.5(2.0,12.0) |
| 假体生存时间(x±s,月) | 54.25±48.89 | 115.46±66.73 | 79.60±64.34 |
表 2.
Diagnostic efficacy of three diagnostic methods for PJI
3种诊断方式对PJI的诊断效能
| 项目 Item |
TPBS | CRP | TPBS-CRP |
| 诊断结果(TP/TN/FP/FN,例) | 102/59/23/14 | 86/59/23/30 | 112/57/25/4 |
| 灵敏度(%) | 87.9 | 74.1 | 96.6 |
| 特异度(%) | 72.0 | 72.0 | 69.5 |
| 准确性(%) | 81.3 | 73.2 | 85.4 |
| NPV(%) | 80.8 | 66.3 | 93.4 |
| PPV(%) | 81.6 | 78.9 | 81.8 |
| AUC(95%CI) | 0.799(0.732,0.867) | 0.821(0.763,0.879) | 0.830(0.766,0.895) |
表 3.
Comparison of clinical parameters in patients with TN and FP diagnosed by TPBS
TPBS诊断为TN和FP患者各临床指标比较
| 项目 Item |
TN(n=59) | FP(n=23) | 统计量 Statistical value |
P值 P value |
| 骨缺损(轻度/中度/重度,例) | 29/20/10 | 4/9/10 | Z=–2.661 | 0.008 |
| 症状持续时间 [M(Q1,Q3),月] | 12(5,24) | 24(16,66) | Z=3.576 | <0.001 |
| 假体生存时间(x±s,月) | 118.25±67.88 | 108.30±64.61 | t=−0.604 | 0.547 |
TPBS-CRP联合诊断PJI的灵敏度、准确性、NPV和PPV均高于TPBS和CRP,但特异度低于TPBS和CRP;ROC曲线分析进一步表明,TPBS-CRP联合诊断的AUC值优于TPBS和CRP。TPBS诊断为FP患者的骨缺损严重程度和症状持续时间均差于TN患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);但二者假体生存时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。采用TPBS、CRP、TPBS-CRP诊断为PJI的患者中,诊断前2周分别有49、35、54例接受过抗生素治疗。TPBS和TPBS-CRP诊断前采用抗生素治疗和未治疗的诊断准确性比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而CRP诊断前采用抗生素治疗的诊断准确性显著低于未治疗患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表1~4,图2。
表 4.
Impact of antibiotic treatment 2 weeks before diagnosis on diagnostic accuracy in patients with PJI (%)
PJI患者诊断前2周抗生素治疗与否各诊断方法诊断准确性比较(%)
| 诊断方法 Diagnostic method |
抗生素治疗 Antibiotic therapy |
未行抗生素治疗 Without antibiotic therapy |
统计量 Statistical value |
P值 P value |
| TPBS | 89.1 | 86.9 | χ2=0.133 | 0.716 |
| CRP | 63.6 | 83.6 | χ2=6.016 | 0.014 |
| TPBS-CRP | 98.2 | 95.1 | χ2=0.835 | 0.620 |
图 2.
ROC curves of three diagnostic methods for PJI
3种诊断方式诊断PJI的ROC曲线
3. 讨论
3.1. TPBS、CRP及TPBS-CRP联合诊断对PJI的诊断效能
PJI是全关节置换术后灾难性的并发症,尽管其诊断方法取得了进步,但仍缺乏“金标准”[17-19]。虽然CRP是PJI筛查的关键炎症标志物,但其单独应用缺乏足够的特异度来确认慢性或低毒力感染[10,20]。与传统影像学(X线片、CT、MRI)相比,TPBS由于其独特的显像方式,不受植入物相关伪影的影响,被认为是鉴别假体无菌性松动和PJI的有效方法[21-23]。但是越来越多证据强调了TPBS在诊断PJI方面的局限性。Hill等[24-25]研究显示TPBS在PJI诊断中表现欠佳,对膝关节PJI的灵敏度达100%、特异度33.6%,而对髋关节PJI的灵敏度(29%)和特异度(50%)明显降低,不建议TPBS作为PJI的首选诊断方法。Zhang等[26]通过在血流期设置阈值来评估TPBS的诊断效能,也得出了相同结果,在诊断膝关节PJI时灵敏度为94.3%,而特异度仅为56.0%。本研究结果进一步验证了上述结论,TPBS在3种诊断方式中呈现最低的综合诊断效能,提示其单独应用无法满足临床诊断需求。
针对上述局限性,本研究提出的TPBS-CRP联合诊断方式展现出显著优势。在3种诊断方法中,TPBS-CRP联合诊断不仅获得最高灵敏度、准确性和NPV及PPV,其AUC值亦显著优于单一指标检测,具有较强的诊断效能。其通过整合局部骨代谢和全身炎症反应,提供了一个二维的炎症状态评估,从而提高了PJI的诊断准确性。更具临床价值的是,TPBS-CRP联合诊断方式简便、可靠和较好的成本效益,使其成为常规筛查的实用解决方案,特别适用于医疗资源受限地区。
同时本研究发现,TPBS诊断为FP患者与TN患者相比,FP患者表现出更严重骨缺损和更长症状持续时间。这与TPBS的诊断原理一致,TPBS通过静脉注射具有趋骨性的示踪剂99mTc-MDP,其可迅速吸附沉积在骨骼内,特异显示骨骼的代谢影像。同时感染区域软组织血管扩张,血流速度加快,血管壁通透性增加,炎症细胞及炎症因子数量增多,对示踪剂的摄取增加,局部区域放射性会异常增高。当假体-骨界面出现机械性松动时,一方面会产生磨损颗粒从而诱发慢性炎症反应,导致局部血管及软组织损伤;另一方面,机械应力会诱导骨重塑,加速成骨细胞活性,导致放射性示踪剂摄取增强[27-28],从而造成FP结果。症状持续时间是和骨缺损程度是成正相关的,疼痛症状持续时间越长,骨缺损程度越严重。因此,本研究认为严重的骨缺损和症状持续时间延长可能是TPBS诊断效能有限的主要原因。
3.2. 术前抗生素治疗对诊断效能的影响
抗生素治疗可有效抑制感染,但严重损害了传统生物标志物的诊断效用。本研究发现,虽然抗生素显著降低CRP的诊断效能,但TPBS不受影响。既往研究显示了相同结果,抗生素使用与血清和滑膜生物标志物检测PJI准确性降低显著相关[29-30]。CRP是肝脏合成的急性期反应蛋白,受IL-6调控,反映全身炎症水平和感染相关的免疫激活;而抗生素通过抑制细菌增殖、减少炎症介质释放,可导致CRP水平迅速下降,甚至掩盖持续存在的低毒力感染,造成FN风险。相比之下,TPBS的诊断稳定性源于其成像机制与骨代谢动态变化的紧密关联,血流相和血池相反映感染早期的局部充血及血管增生,而延迟相则捕获羟基磷灰石在骨重塑或破坏区域的沉积。即使抗生素可以控制部分感染,但PJI造成的持续性骨破坏和应力性骨改建仍导致示踪剂的异常摄取。此外,抗生素通常不能穿透假体表面的细菌生物膜[31],从而使残留的局部感染驱动TPBS检测到的持续代谢活性。本研究结果进一步提示TPBS-CRP联合诊断方法在接受抗生素治疗患者中的弹性,即使在抗生素干扰背景下,TPBS仍能通过定位结构性骨代谢异常,弥补CRP的系统性不足,二者联合可提高诊断准确性,从而在术前筛查中更精准区分感染与无菌性松动。
综上述,虽然TPBS在PJI诊断中显示出一定诊断效能,但其区分PJI和无菌性松动的能力限制了作为独立诊断工具的作用。然而,TPBS-CRP联合诊断通过协同局部骨代谢数据(TPBS)和全身炎症谱(CRP)来解决这一局限性,实现了卓越的诊断效能,同时保持了成本效益。但是对于症状持续时间较长、骨缺损程度严重的患者需谨慎使用。本研究也存在一定局限性,首先,本研究为回顾性研究,无法避免其固有偏倚;其次,本研究为单中心研究,其在其他医疗机构的适用性尚不确定。未来研究应继续增加样本量和开展多中心研究来验证本研究结论。
利益冲突 在课题研究和文章撰写过程中不存在利益冲突;项目经费支持没有影响文章观点和对研究数据客观结果的分析及其报道
伦理声明 研究方案经河南省洛阳正骨医院(河南省骨科医院)伦理委员会批准(2024KYKT0033-02)
作者贡献声明 刘国杰:参与研究设计及实施、撰写文章;宋晓兰、翟沛、宋世鹏、包伟东:参与研究实施、数据收集;段亚威、张伟、刘亚峰:数据整理分析;孙永强、李帅垒:研究设计、文章审阅
Funding Statement
河南省重点研发与推广专项(222102310242)
Key Research and Development and Promotion Project of Henan Province (222102310242)
References
- 1.Cao L, Parvizi J, Zhang X, et al. Editorial: Management of PJI/SSI after joint arthroplasty. Arthroplasty, 2024, 6(1): 31. doi: 10.1186/s42836-024-00256-0.
- 2.Tabaja H, Abu Saleh OM, Osmon DR. Periprosthetic joint infection: What’s new? Infect Dis Clin North Am, 2024, 38(4): 731-756.
- 3.Mundi R, Pincus D, Schemitsch E, et al Association between periprosthetic joint infection and mortality following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2024;106(17):1546–1552. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.01160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jardon M, Fritz J, Samim M Imaging approach to prosthetic joint infection. Skeletal Radiol. 2024;53(10):2023–2037. doi: 10.1007/s00256-023-04546-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hoveidaei A, Tavakoli Y, Ramezanpour MR, et al Imaging in periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: A comprehensive review. Microorganisms. 2024;13(1):10. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13010010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Verberne SJ, Sonnega RJ, Temmerman OP, et al What is the accuracy of nuclear imaging in the assessment of periprosthetic knee infection? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(5):1395–1410. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5218-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Verberne SJ, Raijmakers PG, Temmerman OP The accuracy of imaging techniques in the assessment of periprosthetic hip infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2016;98(19):1638–1645. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.韦健, 童凯, 周思齐 人工关节假体周围感染的诊断及防治研究进展. 中华骨科杂志. 2022;42(21):1465–1472. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20220411-00181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Schoenmakers JWA, López-Álvarez M, IJpma FFA, et al A fluorogenic micrococcal nuclease-based probe for fast detection and optical imaging of Staphylococcus aureus in prosthetic joint and fracture-related infections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024;51(10):2988–2997. doi: 10.1007/s00259-023-06499-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yadav AK, Murhekar S, Cinar EN Analysis of serum and synovial inflammatory markers in periprosthetic joint infections: A narrative review. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e72821. doi: 10.7759/cureus.72821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the international consensus on periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J, 2013, 95-B(11): 1450-1452.
- 12.Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, et al The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: An evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):1309–1314. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(257):107–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Khan Y, Arora S, Kashyap A, et al Bone defect classifications in revision total knee arthroplasty, their reliability and utility: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(1):453–468. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04517-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(1):33–44. doi: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90135-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Paprosky WG, Burnett RS Assessment and classification of bone stock deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2002;31(8):459–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.曹力 人工关节置换术后假体周围感染的诊治现状及展望. 中华外科杂志. 2019;57(5):321–325. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gehrke T, Citak M, Parvizi J, et al Periprosthetic joint infections: state-of-the-art. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;145(1):58. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05627-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhou H, Yang Y, Zhang Y, et al Current status and perspectives of diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. Infect Drug Resist. 2024;17:2417–2429. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S457644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tarabichi S, Goh GS, Fraval A, et al Serum and synovial markers in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip, knee, and shoulder: An algorithmic approach. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2024;106(13):1221–1230. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hofmann UK, Eleftherakis G, Migliorini F, et al Diagnostic and prognostic relevance of plain radiographs for periprosthetic joint infections of the hip: a literature review. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01891-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Al-Jabri T, Ridha M, Wood MJ, et al An overview of the current diagnostic approach to periprosthetic Joint Infections. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2024;16:120308. doi: 10.52965/001c.120308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gemmel F, Van den Wyngaert H, Love C, et al Prosthetic joint infections: radionuclide state-of-the-art imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):892–909. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2062-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hill DS, Kinsella D, Toms AD Three-phase Technetium-99m bone scanning in patients with pain in the knee region after cemented total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(5):1105–1113. doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02407-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hill DS, Naim S, Powell RJ, et al 3-phase Technicium-99m bone scanning in patients with pain in the hip region after cemented total hip replacement: a multicentre series of 100 cases. Hip Int. 2018;28(3):259–265. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Zhang F, Shen C, Yu J, et al The Temporal impact of prosthesis implantation and semi-quantitative criteria on the diagnostic efficacy of triple-phase bone scanning for periprosthetic joint infection. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(7):1438–1446. doi: 10.1111/os.13278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Harnik MA, Sodmann A, Hartmannsberger B, et al Bone metabolism in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain Rep. 2024;9(6):e1217. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Mandegaran R, Agrawal K, Vijayanathan S, et al The value of 99mTc-MDP bone SPECT/CT in evaluation of patients with painful knee prosthesis. Nucl Med Commun. 2018;39(5):397–404. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Salimy MS, Blackburn AZ, Katakam A, et al Utility of diagnostic markers in late periprosthetic joint infection workup for total knee arthroplasty patients who received antibiotics 48 hours before aspiration. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(9):1854–1860. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dugdale EM, Uvodich ME, Osmon DR, et al Recent antibiotic treatment impacts serum and synovial laboratory values in early periprosthetic joint infection workup. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6S):S286–S290. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Roy R, Tiwari M, Donelli G, et al Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: A focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence. 2018;9(1):522–554. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

