Current relevance of biomarkers in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: an update

Abstract

With a significant rise in the number of arthroplasty procedures performed worldwide, the increasing revision burden posed by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a matter of growing concern. In spite of various attempts to diagnose PJI, there are no defined tests that can be called a gold standard. Given the importance of early diagnosis in PJI, newer tests and biomarkers have been introduced to improve cumulative diagnostic accuracy. Novel biomarkers like calprotectin, lipocalcin, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-mean platelet volume ratio have demonstrated a potential as diagnostic biomarkers for PJI. This article discusses the relevance of available and newly described diagnostic biomarkers to provide a perspective on the practical applicability in current medical practice, as well as highlights some recent advances in biomarkers for the diagnosis of PJI.

Investigating the translational value of Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) models to determine the risk and severity of Staphylococcal biofilms

“…Timely determination of the identity and antibiotic susceptibility profile of contaminating organisms can be crucial in making clinical dosing decisions to combat PJI [53][54][55]. Usually, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of infecting organisms directs the empirical antibiotic treatment regimens [13,56].…”

Editorial: Management of PJI/SSI after joint arthroplasty

“…Advances in diagnostic techniques and biomarkers have significant potential to improve the accuracy of PJI diagnosis. This was the focus of a study by Tripathi et al [ 22 ], who explored the potential of these advancements. They studied the use of novel biomarkers in conjunction with traditional biomarkers and reviewed the efficacy of various diagnostic methods, such as synovial fluid analysis, serum markers, and molecular techniques, their results particularly suggesting the superiority of synovial fluid biomarkers over serum ones.…”