Pre-aspiration outpatient ultrasound can accurately predict dry taps in prosthetic hips suspected of infection; a prospective study

Introduction: Aspiration represents the most potent method for exploring the potential occurrence of Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI). However, dry taps are common. While aspiration under ultrasound (US) guidance in the radiology department has become increasingly popular, hip aspiration is still routinely conducted in the operating room (OR) under x-ray guidance in numerous medical centers. When conducted within the confines of the OR, a dry tap aspiration not only subjects the patient to an unnecessary invasive procedure but also constitutes a substantial strain on OR time and resources. Our objective was to assess whether an outpatient US conducted before aspiration could reliably predict the likelihood of encountering a dry hip aspiration.

Methods: In a prospective study, we enrolled 50 hips who were suspected of PJI and slated for revision total hip arthroplasty and required hip aspiration. Before the aspiration procedure, we conducted an outpatient hip ultrasound (US) to assess the presence of fluid collection. Subsequently, all patients underwent aspiration under fluoroscopy in the OR, irrespective of the ultrasound findings We then assessed the level of agreement between the ultrasound results and the outcomes of hip aspiration.

Results: The US exhibited a sensitivity of 95.7% (95% CI 69.8–91.8), a specificity of 74.1% (95% CI 52.8–91.8), a positive predictive value of 75.9% (95% CI 50.9–91.3), and a negative predictive value of 95.2% (95% CI 71.3-99.8) in predicting the success of aspiration.

Discussion: Pre-aspiration outpatient US demonstrates a high degree of accuracy in predicting dry taps in these patients. We recommend its incorporation into the hip aspiration procedure in medical centers where aspiration is performed in the operating room. In the broader context, these findings reinforce the preference for US-guided aspiration within the radiology department over x-ray-guided aspiration in the operating room since about ¼ of the positive USs for hip collection will lead to a dry tap if the aspiration is performed in the OR under fluoroscopy guidance.

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a reliable procedure for the treatment of end-stage hip pathologies such as osteoarthritis that provides excellent clinical outcomes and high satisfaction levels (1). The rate of THA is steadily increasing due to the aging population (2) and the growing trend of using this treatment in younger patients (3). In tandem with the increasing number of THAs, revision rates have steadily grown (4).

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after THA and is among the most common indications for hip revision arthroplasty (5). Although the rate of PJI after THA is relatively small (range 0.3%–2.2%), up to 16% of the THA revisions are performed due to infection (5). While the presence of PJI may be obvious in some patients, it more commonly presents with less specific manifestations such as unexplained pain (6). Synovial fluid aspiration is the cornerstone for PJI detection and treatment planning in such cases (7). Hip aspiration, however, is not always straightforward, as “dry tap” is a frequent occurrence, with a reported incidence rate of 23%–45% (8, 9).

Hip aspiration has been traditionally performed in the operating room (OR) by the orthopedic surgeon. More recently, ultrasound (US)-guided aspiration of the hip by an interventional radiologist has become an accepted approach to maximize the chance of a productive aspiration (10–12). Although this technique significantly reduces the cost and OR burden, it is not widely used in some countries and arthroplasty centers, where aspirations continue to be performed in the OR (13–16). In this setting, each dry tap results in a significant waste of OR staff, time, and resources. It also exposes the patient to an unnecessary invasive procedure with its potential morbidities and may delay their diagnosis and treatment. Predicting dry taps could enable the care providers to avoid such drawbacks.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of outpatient hip US in the prediction of dry tap in a series of patients suspected of hip PJI. We hypothesized that the absence of fluid collection in the US could predict the occurrence of dry tap in the OR.

Patients & methods

This study was approved by the ethics review board of our institute, Moheb-Mehr Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Patients provided written consent before participation in the study. Between August 2019 and December 2021, patients indicated for hip revision arthroplasty that were suspicious to PJI due to clinical or lab data were prospectively enrolled in the study. Patients with a definite PJI due to the presence of a draining sinus (n = 5), patients with local conditions hindering a reliable US examination such as significant heterotopic ossification (n = 2), those with a cement spacer after a first-stage hip revision (n = 6), and patients with superficial infection precluding a safe aspiration (n = 1) were excluded from the study. Finally, 53 hips were recruited out of which 50 (47 patients) completed the study and were included. They consisted of 37 (78.7%) males and 10 (21.3%) females with a mean age of 55.2 ± 16.1 (range 28–80). Out of the 50 hips, 41 had a primary THA prosthesis and 9 had revision components.

Outpatient two-dimensional US of the hip was requested for all patients before performing hip aspiration. The radiologist was asked to report the presence of fluid collection and its exact location in/around the hip joint. The presence of any intra-articular or periprosthetic fluid accumulation whether as an anechoic area or debris contained, with increased through-transmission was defined as a fluid collection. Otherwise, it was regarded as a negative US investigation for fluid collection. US evaluations were performed by 15 different radiologists as determined by the patients’ preferences and their insurance regulations.

All patients underwent hip aspiration within one week after US evaluation. In the OR and under monitored anesthesia care, the patients were placed in a supine position. Under the guidance of the fluoroscope, hip aspiration was done using a 22G × 5” spinal needle or a nephrostomy access needle (18 gauge, 20 cm cannula) through anterior and/or lateral approaches. For this purpose, the needle was directed toward the medial and lateral neck of the prosthesis. If the aspiration was negative with this technique, the needle would then be advanced past the superolateral aspect of the neck of the prosthesis into the dependent portion of the joint, as previously described as the most reliable technique (17). In cases with a positive fluid collection in the US, the reported location was also specifically approached. Successful aspiration was defined as the ability to extract ≥1 ml of non-blood fluid. Aspiration of fewer than one ml was labeled as positive only if its culture would come back positive with bacteriology consistent with the result of the later intraoperative tissue culture, sent during the revision surgery. Saline instillation was not performed for dry taps. All aspirations were done under the supervision of the senior author (MA).

The synovial fluid samples were collected in different tubes containing BD BACTEC-PEDS-PLUS/F Medium (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany), anaerobic blood agar, and Sabouraud agar for fungal culture. A separate sample was also sent for white blood cell count. In select cases, samples were also collected for Tuberculosis culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction study. Whenever enough fluid was not available for all culture media, the aerobic culture was given priority. The culture media were maintained in the incubator for up to 15 days for bacterial cultures and a minimum of 30 days for fungal cultures.

All patients underwent a single-stage or a two-stage revision surgery, based on their status according to the 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI diagnosis (18). Intraoperatively during the later revision surgery, a total of five tissue samples were obtained from each hip. The results of intraoperative tissue cultures were regarded as the reference control for determining the success of fluid aspiration if the aspiration volume was ≤1 ml.

Statistical analysis

According to the study by Ong et al. (19), the prevalence of dry tap in hip aspiration was 35.7%. According to this prevalence, type I error of 5%, and power of 80%, a number of 50 hips were identified enough for the evaluation of US sensitivity in the prediction of dry tap (20).

SPSS for Windows, version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA) was used for statistical evaluations. Descriptive data were demonstrated with mean ± standard deviation or number and percentage, with 95% confidence interval (CI). Crosstab order was used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of US in the prediction of dry taps.

Results

US evaluation revealed positive fluid collection in 58% (29 of 50) of the hips and was negative in 42% (21 of 50). Aspiration was successful in 46% (23 of 50) of the hips and was dry in 54% (27 of 50). Matching the results of US evaluation with aspiration showed that only 4.7% (one of 21) of the hips with the negative US for fluid collection had a successful aspiration (Table 1). This patient had chronic PJI and was previously treated with multiple debridement procedures and periods of intravenous antibiotic therapy. The aspirated fluid was less than one milliliter, but its culture turned positive for an uncommon type of Streptococcus (Streptococcus gordonii), consistent with the tissue culture results obtained during the revision surgery.

Table 1

Table 1. Ultrasound ^a aspiration cross-tabulation.

75.9% (22 of 29) of the hips with a fluid collection reported by the US had a successful aspiration, too. Of the hips with positive US and negative aspiration, 71.4% (five of seven) were finally diagnosed to be infected. Evaluation of the accuracy of the US in the prediction of dry taps revealed a sensitivity of 95.7% (95% CI 69.8–99.8) and a specificity of 74.1% (95% CI 52.8–91.8). The PPV and NPV of the US in the prediction of aspiration success were 75.9% (95% CI 50.9–91.3) and 95.2% (95% CI 71.3–99.8), respectively. The Needed Number to Treat (NNT) to prevent one dry tap was 2.38. These results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Accuracy of outpatient ultrasound for predicting aspiration results.

The 24.1% negative aspiration rate under the guidance of fluoroscopy when fluid was detected in the hip by US is a much higher figure than only 3% negative aspiration rate reported by Biliant et al. (21), in hips undergoing US-guided hip aspiration. Therefore, hip aspiration under US guidance in the radiology department is more accurate than aspiration in the OR under fluoroscopy guidance.

The mean OR time for a hip aspiration patient, from the time the patient entered the OR to the time the next patient entered, was 40.4 ± 18.2 min (95% CI 35.4–45.4). The mean number of C-arm shots per procedure was 3.8 ± 3.1 (95% CI 2.9–4.7). This figure was higher for the patients with a dry tap at 5.7 ± 5.1 (95% CI 4.3–7.1) [P value = 0.045, mean difference 1.9 (95% CI 0.04–3.76)].

Intraoperative tissue cultures were positive in 72% (36 of 50) of the hips, including Staphylococcus aureus (n = 9), Staphylococcus epidermis (n = 7), E.Coli (n = 5), Klebsiella pneumonia (n = 3), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 3), Proteous vulgaris (n = 1), Morganella morganii (n = 1), Enterococcus (n = 1), Citrobacter (n = 1), Streptococcus gordonii (n = 1), and Candida albicans (n = 2). In two hips, the infection was polymicrobial.

Discussion

We found that outpatient pre-aspiration US in the OR could accurately predict the chance of dry tap occurrence in THA patients suspected of PJI. Ultrasound predicted dry tap for twenty-one out of 50 hips, out of which actual dry tap was observed in 20 hips during aspiration (concordance rate of 95.2% on dry tap). Therefore, hip US before aspiration in the operating room can fundamentally decrease the rate of dry taps, which will minimize the undue exposure of the patients to an invasive procedure and unnecessary costs to the healthcare system, and expedite the treatment process. However, the US was not as accurate in predicting if a successful tap would follow a positive collection sign, and only 75.9% of the cases with the positive US led to successful aspiration.

Confirming a hip PJI diagnosis is often challenging and a dry tap aspiration further complicates this process (22). The study by Christensen et al. revealed that almost one-third of patients suspected of PJI have a dry hip aspiration, adversely affecting the process of PJI management (23). Various attempts to get a meaningful culture from joints with an initial dry tap have been suggested (10, 24), the most popular being the saline lavage technique. However, there is no consensus about the effectiveness of this approach. While some authors have reported increased sensitivity of PJI diagnosis following saline lavage and re-aspiration (24, 25), others have reported low sensitivity of such aspirates for PJI detection (11, 26). In addition, other parameters of aspiration fluid analysis, such as white cell count, neutrophil differentiation, and alpha defensin, cannot be relied on when lavage fluid is being analyzed (26). Of note, the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection recommended against performing a saline lavage on dry tap occasions (18). Therefore, a dry tap is almost equal to a failed attempt, time and resource wasting, in spite of the hazardous exposure of the patient to an invasive procedure and ionizing radiation.

Attempts have been made to predict hip dry taps. Ong et al. (19) investigated the predictive role of various factors, including the number of prior hip surgeries, size of the femoral head, ESR/CRP values, and body mass index on the “dry tap” occurrence in 336 patients with suspected PJI following THA. Dry tap occurred in 35.7% of their patients. However, none of the evaluated factors were found to be predictive.

Ultrasound is an effective imaging modality for facilitating fluid aspiration by guiding the needle placement for arthrocentesis. Wei et al. (27) evaluated the efficiency of US in differentiating hip PJI (n = 50) from aseptic loosening (n = 12). Their results showed a PPV of 92.1% in the differential diagnosis of PJI and aseptic loosening. Another study revealed the high US efficiency in the evaluation of periprosthetic complications in THA patients by showing a perfect concordance between the US and MRI for detecting fluid collection around hip prostheses (28). Rendelli et al. (29) compared the sensitivity and specificity of fluoroscopy-guided- vs. US-guided joint aspirations performed at the radiology department in 52 hips suspicious of PJI. They found a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 94% for US-guided joint aspirations in the detection of PJI, while the sensitivity and specificity of fluoroscopic joint aspiration were 60% and 81%, respectively. A similar study by Battaglia et al. (30) showed better sensitivity and specificity of US-guided aspiration than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration (69% vs. 27% and 94% vs. 75%, respectively).

Although many investigations acknowledge the superiority of US-guided hip aspiration, this procedure continues to be performed in the operating room by many surgeons all around the world (13–16). The reasons for adopting this policy may include inadequate interdisciplinary collaboration between surgeons and radiologists, fear of inadequate aseptic measures in the radiology department and suboptimal handling of the samples after aspiration, or simply unawareness of the accuracy of US-guided aspiration. We observed a high reliability of outpatient US in the prediction of dry tap, demonstrated by a very small rate of false negative. Although pre-aspiration US was less accurate in the prediction of successful taps, for interventional procedure such as hip aspiration, smaller false negatives are crucial and more important than a small false positive rate. High sensitivity (95.7%) of pre-aspiration US in the present study confirms its small false negative rate. These results could be informative for surgeons who perform hip aspiration in the OR, revealing that outpatient US evaluation is a reliable method to predict dry taps.

Although a preoperative US can help clinicians avoid a dry tap in the OR, only about ¾ of the cases with a positive fluid sign in the US will have a positive tap in the OR under fluoroscopy guidance. This is a lower figure compared to the 97% success rate reported by Biliant, when the aspiration takes place under the US control in the radiology department. Of note, most cases with the positive US and a dry tap were found to be infected in the current study, highlighting the significance of this limitation of fluoroscopy-guided aspiration. We believe that this significant drawback of performing hip aspiration in the operating room, as opposed to US-guided aspiration in the radiology department, merits consideration and suggests a potential need for a policy revision in centers where the former practice is in place.

Not only the outpatient US could help the surgeons avoid unnecessary aspiration procedures and their potential morbidities such as bleeding, nerve injury, and introducing a new infection to the joint (31), but also it reduces the financial and time burdens, both for patients and the health-care system. The average time from entering a patient to the OR for hip aspiration to the end of operation and preparation of the OR for the next patient was almost 40 min. Considering an average cost of about $37 per minute for running OR (32), avoiding one single dry tap aspiration could save around $1,480, excluding the other costs of the procedure. The reimbursement fee for an outpatient hip US study could be from $48 to $245 in different outpatient settings across the United States (33). Assuming an average cost of $146.5, and given the NNT of 2.38, for preventing a minimum cost of $1,480 for each dry tap, $348.67 would be spent on preoperative outpatient US evaluations, a clearly cost-effective figure. In addition, we exposed the dry tap patients to an average of 5.7 C-arm shots that could have been avoided by a prior US investigation.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the predictive value of the pre-aspiration US study for dry tap occurrence. The prospective nature of the study adds to the reliability of the findings. However, it has some limitations, too. Fifteen different operators with different experience levels did US evaluations. However, this heterogeneity could also be regarded as a strength of the study because it better reflects real-world circumstances. A full cost analysis was not performed due to the lack of some necessary pieces of information. In addition, the measured OR time for hip aspirations could be institution-specific and not generalizable to all centers. Nonetheless, the limited calculations performed on the direct financial wastes of a dry tap reveal the high value of avoiding it, a fact that is unlikely to be fundamentally different for other centers.

In conclusion, performing outpatient US before hip aspiration in patients suspected of PJI following THA can accurately predict dry-tap aspirations, thereby decreasing the waste of time and resources in the OR, preventing patients’ exposure to ionizing radiation, and minimizing the delay in the diagnosis and treatment of PJI. Therefore, we suggest the adjunction of outpatient US to hip aspiration surgery in centers where this procedure is preferred to be performed in the OR. In such centers, we recommend repeating the US investigation in cases with a negative US study, and if still negative, planning for a tissue sampling. In the broader context, our findings support US-guided aspiration within the radiology department over x-ray-guided aspiration in the operating room, even when factoring in the benefits of a pre-aspiration ultrasound assessment.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences under the code IR.IUMS.REC.1401.609. The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft. SS: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MS-N: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft. MR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by Iran University of Medical Sciences under the grant code of 23340.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Karachalios T, Komnos G, Koutalos A. Total hip arthroplasty: survival and modes of failure. EFORT Open Rev. (2018) 3(5):232–9. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170068

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Kremers HM, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (2015) 97(17):1386–97. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Skyttä ET, Jarkko L, Antti E, Huhtala H, Ville R. Increasing incidence of hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in 30- to 59-year-old patients. Acta Orthop. (2011) 82(1):1–5. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2010.548029

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. 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(4):780–5. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Gundtoft PH, Varnum C, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S. The danish hip arthroplasty register. Clin Epidemiol. (2016) 8:509–14. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S99498

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Lee K-J, Goodman SB. Identification of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Translat. (2014) 3(1):21–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2014.10.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Perry KI, Hanssen AD. Orthopaedic infection: prevention and diagnosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2017) 25(Suppl 1):S4–6. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00634

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Ali F, Wilkinson JM, Cooper JR, Kerry RM, Hamer AJ, Norman P, et al. Accuracy of joint aspiration for the preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. (2006) 21(2):221–6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.05.027

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Li R, Li X, Ni M, Zheng QY, Zhang GQ, Chen JY. Anatomic landmark-guided hip aspiration in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Orthopedics. (2021) 44(1):e85–90. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20201007-04

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Sconfienza LM, Albano D, Messina C, D'Apolito R, De Vecchi E, Zagra L. Ultrasound-guided periprosthetic biopsy in failed total hip arthroplasty: a novel approach to test infection in patients with dry joints. J Arthroplasty. (2021) 36(8):2962–7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.029

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Duck H, Tanner S, Zillmer D, Osmon D, Perry K. Value of ultrasound-guided aspiration of hip arthroplasties performed in an orthopedic clinic by orthopedic surgeons. J Bone Jt Infect. (2021) 6(9):393–403. doi: 10.5194/jbji-6-393-2021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Punzi L, Oliviero F. Arthrocentesis and synovial fluid analysis in clinical practice: value of sonography in difficult cases. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2009) 1154:152–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04389.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Cosentino A, Odorizzi G, Berger W. Infected hip prosthesis in patient with suspected COVID-19 infection. Arthroplasty. (2021) 3(1):1–5. doi: 10.1186/s42836-020-00058-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Huguet S, Luna R, Miguela S, Bernaus M, Matamala A, Cuchi E, et al. Role of joint aspiration prior to reimplantation in patients with a cement spacer in place. World J Orthop. (2022) 13(6):615–21. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i6.615

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Yee DK, Chiu KY, Yan CH, Ng FY. Review article: joint aspiration for diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). (2013) 21(2):236–40. doi: 10.1177/230949901302100225

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Andreolla E, Fernandes MBC, Lima COGX, Saraiva ACM. Analysis of tissue biopsy and joint aspiration in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip infections: cross-sectional study. Acta Ortop Bras. (2021) 29(5):242–5. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220212905241752

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Brandser EA, El-Khoury GY, FitzRandolph RL. Modified technique for fluid aspiration from the hip in patients with prosthetic hips. Radiology. (1997) 204(2):580–2. doi: 10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240558

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen AF, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. (2018) 33(5):1309–14.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Ong J, Tang A, Rozell JC, Babb JS, Schwarzkopf R, Lin D. Factors predicting hip joint aspiration yield or “dry taps” in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. (2022) 17(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-02942-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Bujang MA, Adnan TH. Requirements for minimum sample size for sensitivity and specificity analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. (2016) 10(10):YE01–YE6. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18129.8744

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Balint PV, Kane D, Hunter J, McInnes IB, Field M, Sturrock RD. Ultrasound guided versus conventional joint and soft tissue fluid aspiration in rheumatology practice: a pilot study. J Rheumatol. (2002) 29(10):2209–13.12375335

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

22. Sarungi M, Wallace D. Diagnosing prosthetic joint infection: traditional and contemporary techniques. Annals of Joint. (2020) 6. doi: 10.21037/aoj-20-78

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Christensen TH, Ong J, Lin D, Aggarwal VK, Schwarzkopf R, Rozell JC. How does a “dry tap” impact the accuracy of preoperative aspiration results in predicting chronic periprosthetic joint infection? J Arthroplasty. (2022) 37(5):925–9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.066

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Salem HS, Ehiorobo JO, Mathew KK, Mont MA. Saline lavage and reaspiration for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections. Ann Transl Med. (2019) 7(Suppl 8):S389. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.83

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Partridge D, Winnard C, Townsend R, Cooper R, Stockley I. Joint aspiration, including culture of reaspirated saline after a ‘dry tap’, is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. (2018) 100(6):749–54. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B6.BJJ-2017-0970.R2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Deirmengian C, Feeley S, Kazarian GS, Kardos K. Synovial fluid aspirates diluted with saline or blood reduce the sensitivity of traditional and contemporary synovial fluid biomarkers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2020) 478(8):1805–13. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001188

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Wei W, Huang X, Huang L, Xie L, Li W, Gong Y, et al. Application of ultrasound in diagnosis of prosthesis loosening and infection after total hip arthroplasty. Research Square [preprint]. (2021). doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-222251/v1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Sdao S, Orlandi D, Aliprandi A, Lacelli F, Sconfienza LM, Randelli F, et al. The role of ultrasonography in the assessment of peri-prosthetic hip complications. J Ultrasound. (2014) 18(3):245–50. doi: 10.1007/s40477-014-0107-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Randelli F, Brioschi M, Randelli P, Ambrogi F, Sdao S, Aliprandi A. Fluoroscopy- vs ultrasound-guided aspiration techniques in the management of periprosthetic joint infection: which is the best? Radiol Med. (2018) 123(1):28–35. doi: 10.1007/s11547-017-0811-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Battaglia M, Vannini F, Guaraldi F, Rossi G, Biondi F, Sudanese A. Validity of preoperative ultrasound-guided aspiration in the revision of hip prosthesis. Ultrasound Med Biol. (2011) 37(12):1977–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.09.004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Hansford BG, Stacy GS. Musculoskeletal aspiration procedures. Semin Intervent Radiol. (2012) 29(4):270–85. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1330061

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Reimbursement Information for Diagnostic Ultrasound Procedures Performed by Primary Care Physicians. Available online at: https://www.gehealthcare.com/-/jssmedia/global/products/images/ultrasound/primary-care/pc-reimbursement-advisory_v2-jb59698us.pdf?rev=-1&hash=07AA3B817FEE780C7E8FECB6958DC403 (Accessed August 01, 2023).

Google Scholar