Home > Riviste > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Fascicoli precedenti > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014 March;58(1) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014 March;58(1):85-93

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti
Permessi

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014 March;58(1):85-93

Copyright © 2014 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Diagnostic performance of FDG PET or PET/CT in prosthetic infection after arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Jin H. 1, Yuan L. 1, Li C. 1, Kan Y. 1, Hao R. 2, Yang J. 1

1 Nuclear Medicine Department Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University Beijing, China; 2 Medical Healthcare Center Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University Beijing, China


PDF


Aim: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of published data regarding the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in prosthetic infection after arthroplasty.
Methods: A comprehensive computer literature search of studies published through May 31, 2012 regarding PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET or PET/CT in patients suspicious of prosthetic infection on a per prosthesis-based analysis were calculated. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated to measure the accuracy of PET or PET/CT in patients with suspicious of prosthetic infection.
Results: Fourteen studies comprising 838 prosthesis with suspicious of prosthetic infection after arthroplasty were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82-90%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The pooled specificity of PET or PET/CT in detecting prosthetic infection was 86% (95% CI 83-89%) on a per prosthesis-based analysis. The area under the ROC curve was 0.93 on a per prosthesis-based analysis.
Conclusion: In patients suspicious of prosthetic infection, FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. FDG PET or PET/CT are accurate methods in this setting. Nevertheless, possible sources of false positive results and influcing factors should kept in mind.

inizio pagina