%0 Journal Article
%T Synovial calprotectin in prosthetic joint infection. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
%A Festa E
%A Ascione T
%A Di Gennaro D
%A De Mauro D
%A Mariconda M
%A Balato G
%J Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
%V 0
%N 0
%D 2024 Jul 8
%M 38972902
%F 2.928
%R 10.1007/s00402-024-05416-0
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Calprotectin is a protein endowed with antimicrobial properties, rendering it a distinctive marker for infection. Two methods are currently available for the assay of calprotectin: the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the lateral flow test (LFT). We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of synovial fluid calprotectin and to compare the accuracy of the laboratory-based test and the qualitative assessment for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infection.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We searched (from inception to November 2023) MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies on calprotectin in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio were analyzed. The receiver-operating curve for each method was calculated.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>We included 14 articles in our meta-analysis, including 902 patients who underwent total hip and knee arthroplasties revision; 331 (37%) had a joint infection according to MSIS, MSIS-modified criteria, ICM 2018 and EBJIS 2021. Considering the false-positive result rate of 6% and false-negative result rate of 7%, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) and 0.93 (0.91-0.95), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.94). No statistical differences in terms of sensitivity and specificity were found between ELISA and LFT. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the two calprotectin assessment methods were: LFT 0.90 (95% CI 0.869-0.935) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.894-0.941), respectively; ELISA 0.96 (95% CI 0.914-0.986) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.934-0.988), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the ELISA was superior to that of the LFT (906.6667, 95% CI 271.2686-3030.3712 versus 113.8886, 95% CI 70.4001-184.2414; p < 0.001). The AUC for ELISA and LFT was 0.968 (95% CI 0.944-0.984) and 0.915 (95% CI 0.895-0.933), respectively.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Detection of synovial calprotectin is an accurate test for diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infections. The diagnostic accuracy of the two calprotectin assessment methods is almost comparable. The LFT is a valid, rapid, and more available diagnostic tool, particularly to rule out PJI.