Fluoroscopy‐ vs ultrasound‐guided aspiration techniques in the management of periprosthetic joint infection: which is the best?

Background: Fluid samples obtained from an affected joint still play a central role in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It is the only preoperative test able to discover the causative microbiological agent. In the hip, fluid aspiration can be performed through fluoroscopy, ultrasound, or, less commonly, computed tomography. However, there is still a lack of consensus on which method is preferable in terms of efficacy and costbenefit. Purposes: We, therefore, asked whether (1) the benefits in terms of sensitivity and specificity and (2) the costs were comparable between fluoroscopy- and ultrasound-guided joint aspirations in a suspicious of hip PJI. Methods: Between 2013 and 2016, 52 hip aspirations were performed on 49 patients with clinical, radiological, or serological suspicion of PJI, waiting for a revision surgery. The patients were divided in two groups: fluoroscopy- (n = 26) vs ultrasound-guided hip aspiration group (n = 26). These groups were also divided in control and infected patients. The criteria of MusculoSkeletal Infection Society (MSIS) were used, as gold standard, to define PJI. Results: (1) Ultrasound-guided aspiration revealed valid sensitivity (89% vs 60%) and specificity (94% vs 81%) in comparison with fluoroscopic-guided aspiration. (2) The cost analysis was also in favor of ultrasound-guided aspiration (125.30€) than fluoroscopic-guided aspiration (343.58€). Conclusions: We concluded that ultrasound-guided hip aspiration could represent a valid, safe, and less expensive diagnostic alternative to fluoroscopic-guided aspiration in hip PJI.