When I was in the hospital with an infection of my hip replacement, they did bunches and bunches of tests before they finally figured out what was wrong. Was this really necessary?
For anyone with a total hip replacement (THR), joint infection is a real possibility. And infection can lead to implant failure. Medical evaluation is important because of the risk of joint infection. Treatment depends on knowing if there is (or isn't) an infection. But there isn't one single or individual test that works best to diagnose or rule out infection. The current standard for testing for joint infection is to remove fluid from the joint and test it for bacteria. Cultures of the joint taken directly from the area during surgery are the most accurate. But this type of testing is not practical for the patient who doesn't have an infection or who doesn't need surgery. And there is a fair amount of false-positive test results with intraoperative cultures due to errors in sampling technique. Not only that, but sometimes patients are given antibiotics before the operation (affecting test results) and the surgeon doesn't know it. To avoid the high cost of multiple tests, it would be useful for the surgeon to know which tests to order. A recent study from Rush University Medical Center in Chicago showed that the results of three tests reviewed together make the diagnosis or infection reliable and accurate. The low cost and high specificity make these screening tests attractive and practical. Here's what they found: