Infection is a leading indication for revision arthroplasty. Established criteria used to diagnose prosthetic joint infection (PJI) include a range of laboratory tests. Leucocyte esterase (LE) is widely used on a colorimetric reagent strip for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections. This inexpensive test may be used for the diagnosis or exclusion of PJI. Aspirates from 30 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 79 knee arthroplasties (KA) were analysed for LE activity. Semi-quantitative reagent strip readings of 15, 70, 125 and 500 white blood cells (WBC) were validated against a manual synovial white cell count (WCC). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the optimal cut-off point for the semi-quantitative results. Based on established criteria, six THAs and 15 KAs were classified as infected. The optimal cut-off point for the diagnosis of PJI was 97 WBC. The closest semi-quantitative reading for a positive result was 125 WBC, achieving a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 93%. The positive and negative predictive values of the LE test strip were 74% and 95% respectively.

The LE reagent strip had a high specificity and negative predictive value. A negative result may exclude PJI and negate the need for further diagnostic tests.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1232–6.

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.