Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2024; 23(01): 017-024
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1778711
Original Article

Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT to Identify Occult Infection in Presumed Aseptic Pseudarthrosis after Spinal Fusion: Correlation with Intraoperative Cultures

Yacine El Yaagoubi
1   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Eric Lioret
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Clément Thomas
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Jean-Edouard Loret
3   Department of Neurosurgery, NCT+ Clinic, Tours, France
,
Adrien Simonneau
3   Department of Neurosurgery, NCT+ Clinic, Tours, France
,
Anne-Victoire Michaud-Robert
1   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Laurent Philippe
1   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Maja Ogielska
4   Department of Infectious Diseases, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
,
Caroline Prunier-Aesch
1   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vinci Clinic, Tours, France
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has gained attention as an emerging tool in case of suspicion of infection on spine, whether native or instrumented. However, the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in clinically occult low-grade surgical site infection (SSI) after spinal fusion, an important risk factor for pseudarthrosis, remains unknown.

Methods We retrospectively identified all the presumed aseptic patients with pseudarthrosis confirmed by revision surgery who underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT scans performed between April 2019 and November 2022. These patients were presumed aseptic because they did not have clinical signs or laboratory tests suggestive of SSI, preoperatively. The PET/CT images were analyzed in consensus by two nuclear medicine physicians blinded to the clinical, biological, and imaging information. Visual assessment of increased uptake around cage/intervertebral disk space (and/or hardware) higher than background recorded from the first normal adjacent vertebra was interpreted as positive. Image data were also quantitatively analyzed by the maximum standardized uptake value as an index of 18F-FDG uptake, and the ratio between the uptake around cage/intervertebral disk space (and/or hardware) and background recorded from the first normal adjacent vertebra was calculated. The final diagnosis of infection was based on intraoperative cultures obtained during pseudarthrosis revision surgery.

Results Thirty-six presumed aseptic patients with surgically confirmed pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. Cultures of samples from revisions found that 20 patients (56%) were infected. The most frequent isolated bacterium was Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) in 15 patients (75%), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) in 7 patients (33%). Two patients had co-infections involving both C. acnes and CNS. Of the 36 PET/CT studied in this study, 12 scans were true-negative, 10 true-positive, 10 false-negative, and 4 false-positive. This resulted in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of 50%, 75%, 71%, 55%, and 61%, respectively.

Conclusion In presumed aseptic pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion, 18F-FDG PET/CT offers good specificity (75%) but low sensitivity (50%) to identify occult SSI. The high prevalence (56%) of SSI, mostly caused by C. acnes (75%), found in our presumed aseptic cohort of patients supports the utility of systematic intraoperative cultures in revision cases for pseudarthrosis.

Keywords

fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography/computed tomography - spinal fusion - surgical site infection - pseudarthrosis - Cutibacterium acnes - coagulase-negative staphylococci

Ethical Approval

The study received a local institutional review board approval. Written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study, and the data were anonymized.




Publication History

Article published online:
22 January 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ. Results of lumbosacral fusion for degenerative disc disease with and without instrumentation. Two- to five-year follow-up. Spine 1992; 17 (03) 349-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pateder DB, Park YS, Kebaish KM. et al. Spinal fusion after revision surgery for pseudarthrosis in adult scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31 (11) E314-E319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hollern DA, Woods BI, Shah NV. et al. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis after surgical site infection of the spine. Int J Spine Surg 2019; 13 (06) 507-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Updegrove GF, Armstrong AD, Kim HM. Preoperative and intraoperative infection workup in apparently aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (03) 491-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Khalil JG, Gandhi SD, Park DK, Fischgrund JS. Cutibacterium acnes in spine pathology: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019; 27 (14) e633-e640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gelderman SJ, Faber C, Kampinga GA. et al. A high prevalence of Cutibacterium acnes infections in scoliosis revision surgery, a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. Spine Deform 2023; 11 (02) 319-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hong SH, Choi JY, Lee JW, Kim NR, Choi JA, Kang HS. MR imaging assessment of the spine: infection or an imitation?. Radiographics 2009; 29 (02) 599-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Williams AL, Gornet MF, Burkus JK. CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26 (08) 2057-2066
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Smids C, Kouijzer IJ, Vos FJ. et al. A comparison of the diagnostic value of MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT in suspected spondylodiscitis. Infection 2017; 45 (01) 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kouijzer IJE, Scheper H, de Rooy JWJ. et al. The diagnostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI in suspected vertebral osteomyelitis - a prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45 (05) 798-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim S-J, Pak K, Kim K, Lee JS. Comparing the diagnostic accuracies of F-18 FDG PET and MRI for the detection of spondylodiscitis. Spine 2019; 44 (07) E414-E422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Divi SN, Kepler CK, Boody BS. et al. Consensus on implants in infections after spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (04) 163-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Inanami H, Oshima Y, Iwahori T, Takano Y, Koga H, Iwai H. Role of 18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose PET/CT in diagnosing surgical site infection after spine surgery with instrumentation. Spine 2015; 40 (02) 109-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Follenfant E, Balamoutoff N, Lawson-Ayayi S. et al. Added value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the diagnosis of post-operative instrumented spine infection. Joint Bone Spine 2019; 86 (04) 503-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Segawa T, Koga H, Oshina M, Fukushima M, Inanami H. The diagnostic value of fuorine-18 fuorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of surgical site infection after spine surgery. Spine 2021; 46 (10) E602-E610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shifflett GD, Bjerke-Kroll BT, Nwachukwu BU. et al. Microbiologic profile of infections in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (12) 3902-3907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K. et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (05) 1309-1314.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hahn F, Zbinden R, Min K. Late implant infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes in scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 (08) 783-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ledermann HP, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Carrino JA. MR imaging findings in spinal infections: rules or myths?. Radiology 2003; 228 (02) 506-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vaidyanathan S, Patel CN, Scarsbrook AF, Chowdhury FU. FDG PET/CT in infection and inflammation–current and emerging clinical applications. Clin Radiol 2015; 70 (07) 787-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 De Winter F, Gemmel F, Van De Wiele C, Poffijn B, Uyttendaele D, Dierckx R. 18-Fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of infection in the postoperative spine. Spine 2003; 28 (12) 1314-1319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Falstie-Jensen T, Lange J, Daugaard H. et al; ROSA study-group. 18F FDG-PET/CT has poor diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing shoulder PJI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019; 46 (10) 2013-2022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lankinen P, Lehtimäki K, Hakanen AJ, Roivainen A, Aro HT. A comparative 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging of experimental Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis and Staphylococcus epidermidis foreign-body-associated infection in the rabbit tibia. EJNMMI Res 2012; 2 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bolander FC, Akerlund B, Axelsson R. FDG-PET/CT limitations in the diagnosis of spinal implant infection. J Med Imaging Case Rep. 2019; 3 (02) 27-29
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Xu T, Zeng Y, Yang X. et al. Application of 68Ga-citrate PET/CT for differentiating periprosthetic joint infection from aseptic loosening after joint replacement surgery. Bone Joint Res 2022; 11 (06) 398-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Burkhard MD, Loretz R, Uçkay I, Bauer DE, Betz M, Farshad M. Occult infection in pseudarthrosis revision after spinal fusion. Spine J 2021; 21 (03) 370-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 El Yaagoubi Y, Loret JE, Lioret E. et al. 18F-NaF PET/CT in presumed aseptic pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion: correlation with findings at revision surgery and intraoperative cultures. World J Nucl Med 2022; 21 (04) 302-313
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Grossi O, Lamberet R, Longis PM. et al; Nantes Bone and Joint Infections Study Group. Risk factors for Cutibacterium acnes spinal implant-associated infection: a case-case-control study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26 (06) 743-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tyner H, Patel R. Propionibacterium acnes biofilm - a sanctuary for Staphylococcus aureus?. Anaerobe 2016; 40: 63-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kelly II JD, Hobgood ER. Positive culture rate in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (09) 2343-2348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar