Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments. METHODS: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration. RESULTS: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Assessment of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review of Imaging-Based Fusion Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive assessment of osseous fusion after spinal fusion surgery is essential for timely diagnosis of patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis and for evaluation of the performance of spinal fusion procedures. There is, however, no consensus on the definition and assessment of successful posterolateral fusion (PLF) of the lumbar spine. This systematic review aimed to (1) summarize the criteria used for imaging-based fusion assessment after instrumented PLF and (2) evaluate their diagnostic accuracy and reliability. METHODS: First, a search of the literature was conducted in November 2018 to identify reproducible criteria for imaging-based fusion assessment after primary instrumented PLF between T10 and S1 in adult patients, and to determine their frequency of use. A second search in July 2021 was directed at primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy (with surgical exploration as the reference) and/or reliability (interobserver and intraobserver agreement) of these criteria. Article selection and data extraction were performed by at least 2 reviewers independently. The methodological quality of validation studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and QAREL (Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies). RESULTS: Of the 187 articles included from the first search, 47% used a classification system and 63% used ≥1 descriptive criterion related to osseous bridging (104 articles), absence of motion (78 articles), and/or absence of static signs of nonunion (39 articles). A great variation in terminology, cutoff values, and assessed anatomical locations was observed. While the use of computed tomography (CT) increased over time, radiographs remained predominant. The second search yielded 11 articles with considerable variation in outcomes and quality concerns. Agreement between imaging-based assessment and surgical exploration with regard to demonstration of fusion ranged between 55% and 80%, while reliability ranged from poor to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: None of the available criteria for noninvasive assessment of fusion status after instrumented PLF were demonstrated to have both sufficient accuracy and reliability. Further elaboration and validation of a well-defined systematic CT-based assessment method that allows grading of the intertransverse and interfacet fusion mass at each side of each fusion level and includes signs of nonunion is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Synovial-Based Tests Outperform Serum Markers to Rule Out Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) provides successful results in most patients. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounts for up to 25% of failed TKAs needing revision. In clinical practice, consensus in diagnostic strategy for excluding or diagnosing PJI is still lacking. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to provide a simplified data-driven diagnostic strategy for aseptic knee and hip revision surgeons to rule out PJI in the outpatient clinic phase. METHODS: A literature search in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane was conducted. Studies involving the diagnosis of PJI in patients with failed TKAs and total hip arthroplasties needing revision were identified. Only studies using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were included. Quality was assessed using MINORS criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for each diagnostic test identified in the included studies. Pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated using a bivariate model and plotted in summary receiver-operator characteristic curves. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated in a hypothetical sample of patients with a given disease prevalence. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, describing a total of 2974 patients. Quality scores ranged from 13 to 19. Meta-analysis could be performed on 7 unique diagnostic tests. Highest pooled sensitivity and specificity were demonstrated for α-defensin with values of 86% and 96.6%, respectively. α-defensin and white blood cell count in synovial fluid demonstrate highest negative predictive value values. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend, in a clinical setting with low-intermediate prevalence of PJI, performing arthrocentesis and joint fluid analysis using α-defensin and/or white blood cell count before revision TKA and revision total hip arthroplasty surgery to rule out PJI.