• Synovial fluid leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage
• Synovial fluid aerobic and anaerobic bacterial cultures
• Synovial fluid leukocyte esterase
• Synovial fluid alpha-defensin (a-defensin)
• Synovial fluid C-reactive protein (CRP)
• Synovial fluid nucleic acid amplification testing [e.g., polymerase chain reaction (PCR)] for bacteria
Description of Evidence:
There was one high, five moderate and four low quality studies evaluating synovial fluid leukocyte count (Della Valle 2007; Cipriano 2012; Ghanem 2008; Trampuz 2004; Schinsky 2008; Spangehl 1999; Choi 2016; Higuera2017; Chalmers 2015; Kwon 2016). Seven studies obtained synovial fluid preoperatively, and three intraoperatively. There was one high, five moderate and three low quality studies evaluating synovial fluid neutrophil percentage (Della Valle 2007; Cipriano 2012; Ghanem 2008; Schinsky 2008; Spangehl 1999;Trampuz 2004; Balato 2017; Higuera 2017; Kwon 2016). Seven studies used fluid obtained preoperatively, and two used intraoperatively-collected fluid. Most of the studies found both tests to be moderate to strong at ruling in and ruling out PJI.
There were two high, seven moderate and one low quality studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative aspiration culture for bacteria (Della Valle 2007; Eisler 2001; Barrack 1993; Fink 2008; Fink 2013; Glithero 1993; Malhotra 2004; Mulcahy 1996; Williams 2004; Parvizi 2006). Every study evaluated preoperatively-collected synovial fluid, except the Parvizi 2006 study which used synovial fluid obtained operatively. A meta-analysis of the preoperative aspiration studies found it to be a good rule-in test [pooled positive LR=10.09 (6.74,15.09)]. Although slightly weaker as a rule-out, the test was still useful [negative LR=.29 (.22,.40)]. The intraoperatively-collected synovial fluid culture study found the test to be strong at ruling in, and moderately strong at ruling out PJI.
Three moderate quality studies evaluated the synovial fluid leukocyte esterase test (Koh 2017; Shafafy 2015; Parvizi 2011). Two studies used preoperatively-collected and one used intraoperatively-collected synovial fluid. The test was useful for ruling in (positive LR range=4.25 to 80) and ruling out PJI (negative LR range= 0 to .2). Three moderate and three low quality studies evaluated synovial fluid a-defensin testing (Kasparek 2016; Suda 2017; Bonanzinga 2017; Berger 2017; Deirmengian 2014; Bingham 2014). The strength of evidence is rated as moderate, although it is important to note that relevant conflicts of interest were present in five out of the six a-defensin studies. Three of the studies used synovial fluid obtained intraoperatively, and the other three used synovial fluid obtained preoperatively. The test was useful for ruling in (positive LR range=4.36 to 32.33) and ruling out PJI (.03 to .36).
One moderate and two low quality studies evaluated synovial fluid CRP using synovial fluid obtained preoperatively (Tetreault 2014; Omar 2015; Vanderstappen 2013). The positivity thresholds in these studies ranged from 1.8 to 14.1 mg/L. One additional moderate quality study used intraoperatively-collected synovial fluid for CRP in combination with leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage analysis (Sousa 2017). Synovial fluid CRP alone was a moderate to strong rule-in test and a moderate to strong rule-out test (positive LR range=5.86-15; negative LR range=0 to.19). When used in combination with synovial fluid leukocyte count or neutrophil percentage, it was very a strong rule-in test (positive LR range=39.88 to77.42), but a weaker rule-out test (negative LR=.23 to.4).
One moderate knee (Melendez 2016) and one moderate hip/knee study (Morgenstern 2017) evaluated synovial fluid PCR using synovial fluid obtained preoperatively. Morgenstern evaluated multiplex PCR and Melendez used a genus and group specific rapid PCR assay panel designed to target Staphylococcus species, Enterococcus/Granulicatella/Abiotrophia species, Proteus species, Enterobacteriaceae, Bacteroides fragilis group, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, streptococci, Corynebacterium species, Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium/Actinomyces species, and anaerobic Gram-positive cocci. PCR was
moderately strong as a rule-in test (positive LR range=5.55-6.82), and was of use for ruling out PJI (negative LR range=0.45-0.48).
There were three high quality studies, six moderate and one low quality study evaluating histopathology (Della Valle 2007; Frances 2007; Ko 2005; Banit 2002; Boettner 2016; Fehring 1994; Kasparek 2016; Lonner 1996; Nunez 2007; Suda 2017). The studies used various thresholds, but most had positive likelihood ratios in the moderate to strong rule-in test range. There were enough studies to meta-analyze thresholds of at least 5 and 10 neutrophils/high powered field (HPF). Both meta-analyses revealed both thresholds were strong at ruling in PJI [(5 neutrophils/HPF LR+=13.82(7.29, 26.19); 10 neutrophils/HPF in 5 fields= 56.5(20.3,157.2)]. As rule-out tests, results were more inconsistent and were unable to be pooled, but indicated the test may be of some use for ruling out PJI (negative LR range=.05 to .91).
There was 1 high, 5 moderate and 1 low quality study that evaluated periprosthetic tissue cultures (Aggarwal 2013; Atkins 1998; Schafer 2008; Spangehl 1999; Trampuz 2006; Trampuz 2007; Parvizi 2006). A meta-analysis was conducted using a threshold of 2 or more positive samples, which was revealed to be a very good rule-in test [positive LR=28.9(14.3, 58.6)] and was somewhat useful as a rule-out test [negative LR=0.34(0.27, 0.43)].
One high and three moderate quality studies evaluated sonication fluid cultures (Greenwood-Quaintance 2014; Janz 2013; Trampuz 2006; Trampuz 2007) using various cutpoints for positivity. The studies, in general, found the test to be moderate to strong at ruling in PJI (positive LR=4.25 to 172.25, and to be useful as a rule-out test (Negative LR=.11 to .32). A meta-analysis was conducted which revealed an area under the curve of .90 (.87-.92).
One high and three low quality studies evaluated sonication fluid PCR (Greenwood-Quaintance,K.E., 2014; Cazanave 2013; Gomez 2012; Ryu,S.Y., 2014). The test was good at ruling in PJI (positive LR range=8.71-78.26) and was also useful for ruling it out (negative LR range=0.19-0.30). There was 1 moderate and one low quality study (Suda,A.J., 2017; Ryu,S.Y., 2014) evaluating periprosthetic tissue PCR. The test was weak at ruling in (positive LR range=2.92-4.84), but very poor at ruling out PJI (negative LR range=0.77-0.87).
It is important to distinguish PJI from non-infectious causes of arthroplasty failure because of divergent surgical and medical management. In addition, in cases of PJI, the infecting microorganism(s) should ideally be defined to direct antimicrobial therapy; only cultures and microbe-directed molecular diagnostics are able to define the infecting microorganism(s). Preferably, a diagnosis should be established pre-operatively to allow for pre-surgical planning. If feasible, preoperative arthrocentesis is recommended, with fluid submitted for leukocyte count and differential, as well as aerobic and anaerobic cultures. There are varying methods for performance of synovial fluid cultures; culture in blood cultures bottles may be helpful, although there is no United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved/cleared system for this approach. No evidence supports routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures of synovial fluid.
It should be noted that interpretive criteria for synovial fluid leukocyte counts and differential vary from those applied to native joint septic arthritis, that some studies suggest that different cutoffs be applied for hip versus knee arthroplasties, and that cutoffs may vary with the time post-arthroplasty. Definition of appropriate cutoffs for synovial leukocyte count and differential are beyond the scope of this guideline.
Synovial fluid leukocyte esterase strip tests may be applied to synovial fluid as a rapid diagnostic for PJI, but no assay is United States FDA approved/cleared for this indication and this testing may be redundant with leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage determination. Likewise, synovial fluid a-defensin and CRP may be used but are also not FDA approved/cleared at this time and may be redundant with leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage determination, and serum CRP, respectively. Several studies have examined microbial nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., PCR) applied to synovial fluid; none of these tests are FDA-approved/cleared and this type of testing may be redundant with cultures and does not provide phenotypic susceptibility test results. In addition, not all nucleic acid amplification tests are equivalent. Some may target specific microorganisms (and not “all” PJI-causing organisms), whereas others may be more broad-range in nature, targeting, for example, a conserved bacterial gene (e.g., 16S ribosomal RNA gene).
If a preoperative diagnosis of PJI has been established and the microbiology defined, intraoperative testing for PJI may not be needed. Alternatively, if this is not the case, efforts should focus on determining whether or not the arthroplasty is infected and on defining the infecting microorganism(s). Histopathology is recommended, and when performed as frozen section histopathology, can provide a result during the operative procedure. Multiple periprosthetic tissues should be submitted for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial culture. Definition of the ideal number of periprosthetic tissues to be submitted to bacterial cultures is beyond the scope of this guideline. If implant components are being resected, they may be submitted for sonication, with aerobic and anaerobic bacterial cultures performed on the resultant sonication (or sonicate) fluid. No evidence supports routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures of periprosthetic tissues or sonication fluid. Several studies have examined microbial nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., PCR) applied to periprosthetic tissues as well as sonication fluid; none of these tests is FDA-approved/cleared and this type of testing may be redundant with cultures and may be best reserved for culture-negative cases. One possibility to achieve this is to collect and reserve a sample for future molecular testing, if needed. The same caveats vis-à-vis lack of equivalency between such tests as detailed for synovial fluid apply to nucleic acid amplification tests applied to periprosthetic tissues and sonication fluid.
Overall, sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification testing is better for sonication fluid than periprosthetic tissues.While nucleic acid amplification tests performed on periprosthetic tissue may be useful in ruling in PJI, they are not useful for ruling out PJI, and therefore not routinely recommended on this specimen-type. Swab cultures are not recommended because swabs sample a small amount of material, and alternative specimens, as detailed above, are easily collected, providing lower rates of false negative diagnoses.
POSSIBLE HARMS OF IMPLEMENTATION
There is no perfect test for diagnosis of PJI. Lack of sensitivity of the above-listed tests can lead to missed diagnoses and conversely, lack of specificity (either a false-positive diagnosis of PJI or detection of a microorganism which is not causing PJI) can lead to inappropriate surgery and/or use of unneeded antibiotics, increased cost of care, selection for antibacterial resistance, toxicity and/or dysbiosis. Additionally, not all test options are available at each center which may have resource, access to care, and cost implications not fully delineated in these recommendations.
While multiple tests are listed, the goal, as stated above, should be to rule in or rule out PJI and if ruled in, define its microbiology. In most cases, this can be achieved without using all of the testing covered. Ideally, testing should be deployed in an algorithmic fashion; defining such an algorithm is beyond the scope of this guideline but is needed. The field of molecular microbiology diagnostics, including organism-specific, multiplex panels, 16S ribosomal RNA gene or other broad-range bacterial PCR followed by Sanger sequencing of amplification products, targeted metagenomic sequencing and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, is rapidly developing, which will likely impact future recommendations. Future research should address the most appropriate type of advanced diagnostic(s), which specimen-types are ideal or such testing, the ideal number of specimens to be tested, and when, in the course of testing and under which scenarios this type of testing is most appropriate (i.e., develop algorithms for appropriate test utilization).
- (100) Spangehl MJ, Masterson E, Masri BA, O'Connell JX, Duncan CP. The role of intraoperative gram stain in the diagnosis of infection during revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1999;14(8):952-956.
- (104) Trampuz A, Piper KE, Hanssen AD et al. Sonication of explanted prosthetic components in bags for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection is associated with risk of contamination. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44(2):628-631.
- (105) Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 2007;357(7):654-663.
- (111) Williams JL, Norman P, Stockley I. The value of hip aspiration versus tissue biopsy in diagnosing infection before exchange hip arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 2004;19(5):582-586.
- (2) Atkins BL, Athanasou N, Deeks JJ et al. Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36(10):2932-2939.
- (21) Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Jacobs JJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Paprosky WG. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007;22(6 Suppl 2):90-93.
- (27) Eisler T, Svensson O, Engstrom CF et al. Ultrasound for diagnosis of infection in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001;16(8):1010-1017.
- (3) Banit DM, Kaufer H, Hartford JM. Intraoperative frozen section analysis in revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;(401):230-238.
- (30) Fehring TK, McAlister JA, Jr. Frozen histologic section as a guide to sepsis in revision joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(304):229-237.
- (31) Fink B, Makowiak C, Fuerst M, Berger I, Schafer P, Frommelt L. The value of synovial biopsy, joint aspiration and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of late peri-prosthetic infection of total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90(7):874-878.
- (32) Frances BA, Martinez FM, Cebrian Parra JL, Graneda DS, Crespo RG, Lopez-Duran SL. Diagnosis of infection in hip and knee revision surgery: intraoperative frozen section analysis. Int Orthop 2007;31(1):33-37.
- (33) Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RS et al. Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(8):1637-1643.
- (35) Glithero PR, Grigoris P, Harding LK, Hesslewood SR, McMinn DJ. White cell scans and infected joint replacements. Failure to detect chronic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75(3):371-374.
- (4) Barrack RL, Harris WH. The value of aspiration of the hip joint before revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75(1):66-76.
- (59) Lonner JH, Desai P, Dicesare PE, Steiner G, Zuckerman JD. The reliability of analysis of intraoperative frozen sections for identifying active infection during revision hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78(10):1553-1558.
- (65) Malhotra R, Morgan DA. Role of core biopsy in diagnosing infection before revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004;19(1):78-87.
- (68) Mulcahy DM, Fenelon GC, McInerney DP. Aspiration arthrography of the hip joint. Its uses and limitations in revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 1996;11(1):64-68.
- (75) Nunez LV, Buttaro MA, Morandi A, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Frozen sections of samples taken intraoperatively for diagnosis of infection in revision hip surgery. Acta Orthop 2007;78(2):226-230.
- (78) Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Menashe S, Barrack RL, Bauer TW. Periprosthetic infection: what are the diagnostic challenges? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88 Suppl 4:138-147.
- (94) Schafer P, Fink B, Sandow D, Margull A, Berger I, Frommelt L. Prolonged Bacterial Culture to Identify Late Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Promising Strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2008.
- (96) Schinsky MF, la Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Perioperative testing for joint infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(9):1869-1875.
- Aggarwal,V.K., Higuera,C., Deirmengian,G., Parvizi,J., Austin,M.S. Swab cultures are not as effective as tissue cultures for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Clin.Orthop. 2013; 0: 3196-3203
- Balato,G., Franceschini,V., Ascione,T., Lamberti,A., Balboni,F., Baldini,A. Diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid, blood markers, and microbiological testing in chronic knee prosthetic infections. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017/11/4; 0: -
- Berger,P., Van,Cauter M., Driesen,R., Neyt,J., Cornu,O., Bellemans,J. Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection with alpha-defensin using a lateral flow device: a multicentre study. Bone Joint J 2017/9; 9: 1176-1182
- Boettner,F., Koehler,G., Wegner,A., Schmidt-Braekling,T., Gosheger,G., Goetze,C. The Rule of Histology in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Infection: Specific Granulocyte Counting Methods and New Immunohistologic Staining Techniques may Increase the Diagnostic Value. Open Orthop J. 2016; 0: 457-465
- Bonanzinga,T., Zahar,A., Dutsch,M., Lausmann,C., Kendoff,D., Gehrke,T. How Reliable Is the Alpha-defensin Immunoassay Test for Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Prospective Study. Clin.Orthop.Relat.Res. 2017/2; 2: 408-415
- Cazanave,C., Greenwood-Quaintance,K.E., Hanssen,A.D., Karau,M.J., Schmidt,S.M., Gomez Urena,E.O., Mandrekar,J.N., Osmon,D.R., Lough,L.E., Pritt,B.S., Steckelberg,J.M., Patel,R. Rapid molecular microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J.Clin.Microbiol. 2013/7; 7: 2280-2287
- Chalmers,P.N., Walton,D., Sporer,S.M., Levine,B.R. Evaluation of the Role for Synovial Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Aseptic Loosening After Total Knee Arthroplasty. J.Bone Joint Surg.Am. 2015/10/7; 19: 1597-1603
- Choi,H.R., Agrawal,K., Bedair,H. The diagnostic thresholds for synovial fluid analysis in late periprosthetic infection of the hip depend on the duration of symptoms. Bone Joint J. 2016/10; 10: 1355-1359
- Cipriano,C.A., Brown,N.M., Michael,A.M., Moric,M., Sporer,S.M., Della Valle,C.J. Serum and synovial fluid analysis for diagnosing chronic periprosthetic infection in patients with inflammatory arthritis. J.Bone Joint Surg.Am. 2012/4/4; 7: 594-600
- Deirmengian,C., Kardos,K., Kilmartin,P., Cameron,A., Schiller,K., Parvizi,J. Combined measurement of synovial fluid alpha-Defensin and C-reactive protein levels: highly accurate for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. J.Bone Joint Surg.Am. 2014/9/3; 17: 1439-1445
- Fink,B., Gebhard,A., Fuerst,M., Berger,I., Schafer,P. High diagnostic value of synovial biopsy in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. Clin.Orthop Relat.Res. 2013/3; 3: 956-964
- Gomez, E., Cazanave,C., Cunningham,S.A., Greenwood-Quaintance,K.E., Steckelberg,J.M., Uhl,J.R., Hanssen,A.D., Karau,M.J., Schmidt,S.M., Osmon,D.R., Berbari,E.F., Mandrekar,J., Patel,R. Prosthetic joint infection diagnosis using broad-range PCR of biofilms dislodged from knee and hip arthroplasty surfaces using sonication. J.Clin.Microbiol. 2012/11; 11: 3501-3508
- Greenwood-Quaintance, K.E., Uhl,J.R., Hanssen,A.D., Sampath,R., Mandrekar,J.N., Patel,R. Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection by use of PCR-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J.Clin.Microbiol. 2014/2; 2: 642-649
- Higuera,C.A., Zmistowski,B., Malcom,T., Barsoum,W.K., Sporer,S.M., Mommsen,P., Kendoff,D., Della Valle,C.J., Parvizi,J. Synovial Fluid Cell Count for Diagnosis of Chronic Periprosthetic Hip Infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017/5/3; 9: 753-759
- Janz,V., Wassilew,G.I., Hasart,O., Matziolis,G., Tohtz,S., Perka,C. Evaluation of sonicate fluid cultures in comparison to histological analysis of the periprosthetic membrane for the detection of periprosthetic joint infection. Int.Orthop. 2013/5; 5: 931-936
- Kasparek,M.F., Kasparek,M., Boettner,F., Faschingbauer,M., Hahne,J., Dominkus,M. Intraoperative Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Using a Novel Alpha-Defensin Lateral Flow Assay. J.Arthroplasty 2016/12; 12: 2871-2874
- Koh, I.J., Han,S.B., In,Y., Oh,K.J., Lee,D.H., Kim,T.K. The Leukocyte Esterase Strip Test has Practical Value for Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Study. J Arthroplasty 2017/11; 11: 3519-3523
- Kwon, Y.M., Antoci,V.,Jr., Leone,W.A., Tsai,T.Y., Dimitriou,D., Liow,M.H. Utility of Serum Inflammatory and Synovial Fluid Counts in the Diagnosis of Infection in Taper Corrosion of Dual Taper Modular Stems. J.Arthroplasty 2016/9; 9: 1997-2003
- Melendez, D. P., Greenwood-Quaintance,K.E., Berbari,E.F., Osmon,D.R., Mandrekar,J.N., Hanssen,A.D., Patel,R. Evaluation of a Genus- and Group-Specific Rapid PCR Assay Panel on Synovial Fluid for Diagnosis of Prosthetic Knee Infection. J.Clin.Microbiol. 2016/1; 1: 120-126
- Morgenstern,C., Cabric,S., Perka,C., Trampuz,A., Renz,N. Synovial fluid multiplex PCR is superior to culture for detection of low-virulent pathogens causing periprosthetic joint infection. Diagn.Microbiol.Infect.Dis 2017/11/2;
- Omar,M., Ettinger,M., Reichling,M., Petri,M., Guenther,D., Gehrke,T., Krettek,C., Mommsen,P. Synovial C- reactive protein as a marker for chronic periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015/2; 2: 173-176
- Ryu,S.Y., Greenwood-Quaintance,K.E., Hanssen,A.D., Mandrekar,J.N., Patel,R. Low sensitivity of periprosthetic tissue PCR for prosthetic knee infection diagnosis. Diagn.Microbiol.Infect.Dis. 2014/8; 4: 448-453
- Shafafy,R., McClatchie,W., Chettiar,K., Gill,K., Hargrove,R., Sturridge,S., Guyot,A. Use of leucocyte esterase reagent strips in the diagnosis or exclusion of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2015/9; 9: 1232-1236
- Sousa,R., Serrano,P., Gomes,Dias J., Oliveira,J.C., Oliveira,A. Improving the accuracy of synovial fluid analysis in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection with simple and inexpensive biomarkers: C-reactive protein and adenosine deaminase. Bone Joint J 2017/3; 3: 351-357
- Spangehl,M.J., Masri,B.A., O'Connell,J.X., Duncan,C.P. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J.Bone Joint Surg.Am. 1999/5; 5: 672-683
- Suda,A.J., Tinelli,M., Beisemann,N.D., Weil,Y., Khoury,A., Bischel,O.E. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection using alpha-defensin test or multiplex-PCR: ideal diagnostic test still not found. Int.Orthop 2017/2/4; 0:
- Tetreault,M.W., Wetters,N.G., Moric,M., Gross,C.E., Della Valle,C.J. Is synovial C-reactive protein a useful marker for periprosthetic joint infection?. Clin.Orthop Relat.Res. 2014/12; 12: 3997-4003
- 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. 2004/10/15; 8: 556-562
- Vanderstappen,C., Verhoeven,N., Stuyck,J., Bellemans,J. Intra-articular versus serum C-reactive protein analysis in suspected periprosthetic knee joint infection. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013/6; 3: 326-330