Skip to main content
EFORT Open Reviews logoLink to EFORT Open Reviews
. 2016 Jul 26;1(7):275–278. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160019

The role of biomarkers in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection

AliSina Shahi 1, Javad Parvizi 1,
PMCID: PMC5367543  PMID: 28461959

Abstract

  • The role of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as the first line for evaluating a patient with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been debunked.

  • We are living in the era of biomarkers for the diagnosis of PJI, and to that effect, several biomarkers have been introduced such as synovial fluid alpha defensin and leukocyte esterase.

  • The synovial fluid leukocyte esterase test has a low cost, is accessible, and has provided promising results for diagnosing PJI.

  • There is an urgent need for an accurate and reliable serum biomarker for diagnosing patients with PJI.

Cite this article: Shahi A, Parvizi J. The role of biomarkers in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:275-278. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160019.

Keywords: diagnosis, periprosthetic joint infection, PJI, serum biomarkers, synovial fluid biomarkers, total joint arthroplasty

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is responsible for 25% of failed total knee arthroplasties1 and 15% of revision total hip arthroplasties.2 PJI has a huge economic burden on the health care system, and there will be a substantial increase in the number of patients who are diagnosed with PJI in the years to come due to the increasing volume of total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) performed internationally.3,4 In assessing a painful joint after TJA, it is critical for the surgeon to distinguish between septic and aseptic failure, as the treatment protocol for PJI mandates specific surgical strategies that aim to eliminate the infecting microorganism(s).5-8

Diagnosis of PJI is challenging as there is no absolute test to confirm or exclude infection. Hence, the clinician has to use a combination of tests, all of which (besides their expense) can be invasive and are not absolutely accurate.9

There is emerging evidence that a host with an infected joint is likely to mount a primitive, but specific, innate immune response to the pathogens in the infected joint.10-14 This innate immune response is responsible for triggering the systemic immune system and a cascade of protective pathways in the host. Microarray techniques have shown a specific gene expression signature exhibited by the white blood cells (WBCs) in the synovial fluid of infected joints, distinctive of the innate host immune response to infection.10 This unique response was also observed at the level of the proteome, revealing several biomarkers that can potentially be used for diagnosing PJI; interestingly enough, many of these biomarkers diagnostically outperform the currently available tests for PJI.15,16 In 2013, our group evaluated 16 promising synovial fluid biomarkers for the diagnosis of PJI and provided the sensitivity and specificity of each biomarker (Table 1).

Table 1.

Evaluation of promising synovial fluid biomarkers for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection43

Biomarker AUC Cut-off Specificity (%) 95% CI (%) Sensitivity (%) 95% CI (%)
α-Defensin 1.000 4.8 µg/mL 100 95–100 100 88–100
ELA-2 1.000 2.0 µg/mL 100 95–100 100 88–100
BPI 1.000 2.2 µg/mL 100 95–100 100 88–100
NGAL 1.000 2.2 µg/mL 100 95–100 100 88–100
Lactoferrin 1.000 7.5 µg/mL 100 95–100 100 88–100
IL-8 0.992 6.5 ng/mL 95 87–99 100 87–100
SF CRP 0.987 12.2 mg/L 97 90–100 90 73–98
Resistin 0.983 340 ng/mL 100 95–100 97 82–99
Thrombospondin 0.974 1061 ng/mL 97 90–100 90 73–98
IL-1β 0.966 3.1 pg/mL 95 87–99 96 82–100
IL-6 0.950 2.3 ng/mL 97 89–100 89 71–98
IL-10 0.930 32.0 pg/mL 89 79–96 89 72–98
IL-1α 0.922 4.0 pg/mL 91 81–97 82 63–94
IL-17 0.892 3.1 pg/mL 99 92–100 82 63–94
G-CSF 0.859 15.4 pg/mL 92. 82–97 82 62–94
VEGF 0.850 2.3 ng/mL 77 65–87 75 55–89

AUC = area under the curve; α-defensin = human α-defensin 1-3; ELA-2 = neutrophil elastase 2; BPI = bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein; NGAL = neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; SF = synovial fluid; CRP = C-reactive protein; G-CSF = granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; VEGF = vascular endothelial growth factor.

In this review, we aimed to analyse the current diagnostic measures for PJI, with a special focus on molecular biomarkers.

Serum biomarkers

Serum markers are favourable diagnostic tools due to the ease of taking blood and its low-risk nature, compared with synovial fluid aspiration. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the International Consensus meeting on PJI currently recommend the assessment of patients’ serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as the first line of diagnostic evaluation in patients with suspected PJI. Reports have shown a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 72% for ESR and a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 74% for CRP.7,9,17 ESR and CRP are well-known biomarkers of systemic responses to inflammation.18

However, there are issues with the serum markers of inflammation, namely CRP and ESR. These markers are elevated with any type of inflammation and infection, compromising their specificity for diagnosis of PJI. Recent evidence suggests that PJI with some slow-growing organism may not result in a florid physiological response and hence may not result in elevation of ESR and CRP in the serum, raising a concern regarding the sensitivity of the tests in some settings. In addition, a recent study from our institution has shown that the administration of systemic antibiotics to patients with PJI may compromise the results of these laboratory values.19

It is also imperative for clinicians to consider the timing of infection prior to assessing patients’ ESR and CRP results, as they are usually elevated in the early post-operative period. ESR can be elevated for up to six weeks after surgery, and CRP by up to 2 weeks post-surgery.20 Therefore, the use of ESR and CRP for diagnosis of PJI is only meaningful when the other Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) diagnostic criteria are present.

Other serum biomarkers

There is a dire need of a serum biomarker for diagnosing PJI and numerous efforts have been made to pursue this goal.

Procalcitonin (PCT) is a serum biomarker that is elevated in the presence of bacteria. One study21 measured serum levels of PCT, interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, ESR, and CRP in 78 patients undergoing revision total arthroplasty for sepsis. The sensitivity of CRP and IL-6 were highest (95%) for diagnosing PJI when the levels were greater than 3.2 mg/dL and 12 pg/mL respectively. The authors recommended the combination of CRP and IL-6 as a screening test for PJI. PCT levels (> 0.3 ng/mL) were very specific (98%), but had a low sensitivity (33%).

On the contrary, Hügle et al22 showed that PCT with a threshold of 0.25 ng/mL has a higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing septic arthritis than CRP, with a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 75%. This can possibly be explained by the fact that PCT is secreted by the mononuclear phagocyte system when stimulated by lipopolysaccharide. Therefore, PCT can be a useful tool to differentiate between bacterial infections of the joint and other causes of inflammation.

However, more recent studies have claimed that PCT is not a very accurate tool for diagnosing PJI.23,24 In these studies, all patients with septic loosening had an increased serum ESR, CRP, WBC, IL-6, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and serum IgG to short-chain exocellular lipoteichoic acid. IL-6 is secreted by different immune cells and triggers the excretion of CRP; therefore, it is believed that the IL-6 level rises much faster than CRP and has been reported to be a sensitive marker for diagnosing PJI.21,25

Shah et al26 measured the levels of 25 different serum cytokines before and after TJA. Of the measured cytokines, IL-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1 and IL-2R were associated with post-surgical trauma in one PJI patient. The authors concluded that these serum markers can be helpful for the early post-operative diagnosis of PJI. Wirtz et al27 also advocated the role of IL-6, and in their prospective study showed that it is a better indicator for post-operative inflammatory response than CRP in patients undergoing TJA.

Synovial fluid biomarkers

Synovial fluid biomarkers play a very important role in the diagnosis of PJI. They can be categorised into two main groups: cytokines and biomarkers with antimicrobial functions.10 When infection occurs in a joint, cytokines such as IL-1b, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, and TNF-α are released from macrophages.15,28 Studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor, which is a marker for angiogenesis, also increases in PJI patients.16 The problem with this group of biomarkers is the low specificity, and these markers can be elevated in other inflammatory conditions of the joint such as rheumatoid arthritis.

More specific synovial fluid biomarkers are: leukocyte esterase (LE), human α-defensin, human β-defensin synovial CRP, and cathelicidin LL-37. Leukocyte esterase is an enzyme that is secreted by the activated neutrophils, and has been utilised in other types of infection, especially urological conditions. In the setting of PJI, neutrophils that are recruited to the joint secrete LE that can be detected using colourimetric strip tests via reactions that result in a colour change.29 Leukocyte esterase is a simple, readily available test, requiring application of synovial fluid to a urine test strip. It is now part of the minor criteria of the MSIS diagnostic criteria for PJI.30 Tischler et al31 demonstrated that the LE strip test has a high specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and moderate sensitivity for diagnosing PJI. Wetters et al32 investigated the accuracy of the LE test and reported a sensitivity of between 92.9% and 100%, and a specificity between 77.0% and 88.8%. Only non-blood-contaminated samples can be evaluated for the LE test, as the presence of blood can potentially interfere with the colourimetric changes of the test strip.31

The synovial fluid α-defensin test has shown promising results, with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 96% for diagnosing PJI.33 Defensins are 2-6 kDa cationic microbicidal peptides that are active against many Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, fungi, and enveloped viruses.34 Defensins in mammals are classified into alpha, beta and theta categories, based on their size and pattern of disulfide bonding. Alpha-defensins are particularly found in neutrophils, certain macrophage populations and Paneth cells. Defensins are produced in response to microbial products or pro-inflammatory cytokines.

The α-defensin mechanism by which micro-organisms are destroyed and inactivated is not yet fully understood. Nevertheless, the general belief is that the destruction is a consequence of disruption to the micro-organism’s membrane.35 The spatially separated, charged, and hydrophobic regions, along with the polar topology of α-defensin, allows it to insert itself into the membranes; therefore, the hydrophobic regions are buried within the phospholipid membrane interior, and the cationic sites interact with anionic phospholipid head groups and water. The disruption of membrane integrity and function leads to lysis of the micro-organisms.36 In other words, defensins, especially α-defensin, are from primitive immune systems that are innately activated and function locally regardless of the systematic response.37

Several studies have endorsed the role of the α-defensin test in diagnosing patients with PJI. The α-defensin test provides consistent results regardless of the organism type, Gram staining, species, or virulence of the organism, and should be seriously considered as a standard diagnostic tool in the evaluation for PJI.10 In another study by Bingham et al,38 the authors concluded that the sensitivity and specificity of the synovial fluid α-defensin assay exceeded the sensitivity and specificity of other currently available clinical tests.

CRP, which is elevated in both the serum and synovial fluid of PJI cases, is a protein that is synthesised in the liver in response to acute inflammation when there are increased macrophages.39 Parvizi et al40 found a statistically significant difference in the mean of synovial fluid CRP comparing septic with aseptic patients. There was a mean of 40 mg/L vs a mean of 2 mg/L, respectively (p < .0001). The study found a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 95% when 9.5 mg/L was considered the threshold.

Human host defense peptide LL-37 is one of the cathelicidins and is an antimicrobial peptide that induces mediators such as IL-8, and regulates the inflammatory response.41,42 Gollwitzer et al28 demonstrated that LL-37 was elevated in the synovial fluid of PJI patients and reported a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 85%, with an area under the curve of 0.875.

Conclusion

Modern medicine has entered a new era where molecular biomarkers play an increasingly important role in the diagnosis of various conditions. Biomarkers also hold great promise for diagnosis of PJI. However, efforts must continue to find cost-effective and accessible biomarkers, preferably measured in the serum, with all their potential benefits.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Funding

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

References

  • 1. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:45-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:128-133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2007;89:780-785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fehring TK, Odum SM, Troyer JL, Iorio R, Kurtz SM, Lau EC. Joint replacement access in 2016: a supply side crisis. J Arthroplasty 2010;1175–81. (Epub ahead of print) PMID:20870384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Garvin KL, Konigsberg BS. Infection following total knee arthroplasty: prevention and management. Instr Course Lect 2012;61:411-419. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Shahi A, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies. SA Orthop J 2015;14:52-60. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Parvizi J, Adeli B, Zmistowski B, Restrepo C, Greenwald AS. Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the current knowledge: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2012;94:e104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wolf CF, Gu NY, Doctor JN, Manner PA, Leopold SS. Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2011;93:631-639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Gehrke T, Parvizi J. Proceedings of the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:1-4. [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Deirmengian C, Lonner JH, Booth RE., Jr The Mark Coventry Award. White blood cell gene expression: a new approach toward the study and diagnosis of infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;440:38-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Fessler MB, Malcolm KC, Duncan MW, Worthen GS. A genomic and proteomic analysis of activation of the human neutrophil by lipopolysaccharide and its mediation by p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase. J Biol Chem 2002;277:31291-31302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kim SA, Yoo SM, Hyun SH, et al. Global gene expression patterns and induction of innate immune response in human laryngeal epithelial cells in response to Acinetobacter baumannii outer membrane protein A. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2008;54:45-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Manger ID, Relman DA. How the host ‘sees’ pathogens: global gene expression responses to infection. Curr Opin Immunol 2000;12:215-218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Tzou P, De Gregorio E, Lemaitre B. How drosophila combats microbial infection: a model to study innate immunity and host-pathogen interactions. Curr Opin Microbiol 2002;5:102-110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Deirmengian C, Hallab N, Tarabishy A, et al. Synovial fluid biomarkers for periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2017-2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Jacovides CL, Parvizi J, Adeli B, Jung KA. Molecular markers for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2011;26(suppl):99-103.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Austin MS, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Lindsay A, Parvizi J. A simple, cost-effective screening protocol to rule out periprosthetic infection. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:65-68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Gabay C, Kushner I. Acute-phase proteins and other systemic responses to inflammation. N Engl J Med 1999;340:448-454. ID:9971870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Shahi A, Deirmengian C, Higuera C, et al. Premature therapeutic antimicrobial treatments can compromise the diagnosis of late periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:2244-2249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:771-772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bottner F, Wegner A, Winkelmann W, Becker K, Erren M, Götze C. Interleukin-6, procalcitonin and TNF-α: markers of peri-prosthetic infection following total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89:94-99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Hügle T, Schuetz P, Mueller B, et al. Serum procalcitonin for discrimination between septic and non-septic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008;26:453-456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Worthington T, Dunlop D, Casey A, Lambert R, Luscombe J, Elliott T. Serum procalcitonin, interleukin-6, soluble intercellular adhesin molecule-1 and IgG to short-chain exocellular lipoteichoic acid as predictors of infection in total joint prosthesis revision. Br J Biomed Sci 2010;67:71-76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Drago L, Vassena C, Dozio E, et al. Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 as markers of postoperative orthopaedic joint prosthesis infections. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2011;24:433-440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Selberg O, Hecker H, Martin M, Klos A, Bautsch W, Köhl J. Discrimination of sepsis and systemic inflammatory response syndrome by determination of circulating plasma concentrations of procalcitonin, protein complement 3a, and interleukin-6. Crit Care Med 2000;28:2793-2798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Shah K, Mohammed A, Patil S, McFadyen A, Meek RMD. Circulating cytokines after hip and knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:946-951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Wirtz DC, Heller K-D, Miltner O, Zilkens K-W, Wolff JM. Interleukin-6: a potential inflammatory marker after total joint replacement. Int Orthop 2000;24:194-196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Gollwitzer H, Dombrowski Y, Prodinger PM, et al. Antimicrobial peptides and proinflammatory cytokines in periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2013;95:644-651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Parvizi J, Jacovides C, Antoci V, Ghanem E. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the utility of a simple yet unappreciated enzyme. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2011;93:2242-2248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Parvizi J, Gehrke T; International Consensus Group on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Tischler EH, Cavanaugh PK, Parvizi J. Leukocyte esterase strip test: matched for musculoskeletal infection society criteria. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2014;96:1917-1920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Wetters NG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, et al. Leukocyte esterase reagent strips for the rapid diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(suppl):8-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Deirmengian C, Kardos K, Kilmartin P, Cameron A, Schiller K, Parvizi J. Combined measurement of synovial fluid α-Defensin and C-reactive protein levels: highly accurate for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2014;96:1439-1445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. White SH, Wimley WC, Selsted ME. Structure, function, and membrane integration of defensins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1995;5:521-527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Mathew B, Nagaraj R. Antimicrobial activity of human α-defensin 5 and its linear analogs: n-terminal fatty acylation results in enhanced antimicrobial activity of the linear analogs. Peptides 2015;71:128-140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Xie Z, Feng J, Yang W, et al. Human α-defensins are immune-related Kv1.3 channel inhibitors: new support for their roles in adaptive immunity. FASEB J 2015. (Epub ahead of print) PMID:26148969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Wiesner J, Vilcinskas A. Antimicrobial peptides: the ancient arm of the human immune system. Virulence 2010;1:440-464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Bingham J, Clarke H, Spangehl M, Schwartz A, Beauchamp C, Goldberg B. The alpha defensin-1 biomarker assay can be used to evaluate the potentially infected total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:4006-4009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Parvizi J, Jacovides C, Adeli B, Jung KA, Hozack WJ, Mark B. Coventry Award: synovial C-reactive protein: a prospective evaluation of a molecular marker for periprosthetic knee joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:54-60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Parvizi J, McKenzie JC, Cashman JP. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection using synovial C-reactive protein. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(suppl):12-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Nijnik A, Hancock REW. The roles of cathelicidin LL-37 in immune defences and novel clinical applications. Curr Opin Hematol 2009;16:41-47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Overhage J, Campisano A, Bains M, Torfs ECW, Rehm BHA, Hancock REW. Human host defense peptide LL-37 prevents bacterial biofilm formation. Infect Immun 2008;76:4176-4182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Deirmengian C, Kandos K, Kilmartin P, Cameron A, Schiller K, Parvizi J. Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: has the era of the biomarker arrived? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:3254–3262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFORT Open Reviews are provided here courtesy of Bioscientifica Ltd.

RESOURCES