medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-779X (Electronic)
ISSN 2007-6452 (Print)

2024, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Investigación en Discapacidad 2024; 10 (3)

Clinical perception of arthrocentesis and the utility of synovial fluid analysis

Fernández-Torres J, Vázquez-Mellado J, Lozada-Pérez C, Martínez-Flores K, Martínez-Nava GA, Zamudio-Cuevas YE

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 162-170
PDF size: 250.64 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: synovial fluid (SF) analysis provides useful information on the degree of inflammation, remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of crystal arthritis and septic arthritis; however, in some cases it can be problematic due to technical difficulties in correctly approaching the analysis. Objective: to investigate the perception of physicians and health personnel regarding the usefulness of arthrocentesis and SF analysis in clinical practice. Material and methods: a survey was developed and applied in a pilot study; subsequently, it was adjusted and applied to 96 people after the course "Segundo Entrenamiento para la correcta identificación e interpretación de cristales en el líquido sinovial (2020)". A descriptive statistical analysis was performed, and the prevalence was reported as percentages. Results: of the respondents, 68.4% were medical specialists and of these, 66.7% were rheumatologists, 12.2% internists and 3.3% orthopedists. Among the health professionals surveyed, 72.8% have received training for arthrocentesis and SF analysis, but do not perform these procedures with frequency; 47.2% reported not performing SF analysis due to lack of equipment and supplies, lack of experience and/or skill to perform the analysis. 52.8% reported sending the SF to a laboratory, of which 21.3% sent it frequently, 14.6% almost never and 11.2% never. The reasons for not sending the SF are low volume extraction, only carrying out the macroscopic analysis, and lack of microscope in the laboratory. 27.6% considered that SF analysis changes their diagnosis frequently, and 17.2% always. Conclusion: arthrocentesis and SF analysis are infrequently performed procedures, which could limit their diagnostic effectiveness and the maintenance of acquired skills. The identification of barriers such as lack of equipment, supplies, infrastructure, could be key to improve the use of these diagnostic techniques.


REFERENCES

  1. Martínez-Castillo A, Núñez C, Cabiedes J. Synovial fluid analysis. Reumatol Clin. 2010; 6 (6): 316-321. doi: 10.1016/j.reuma.2009.12.010.

  2. Neogi T, Jansen TL, Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Schumacher HR, Berendsen D et al. 2015 Gout classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015; 74 (10): 1789-1798. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208237.

  3. Qaseem A, McLean RM, Starkey M, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Diagnosis of acute gout: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166 (1): 52-57. doi: 10.7326/M16-0569.

  4. Taylor WJ, Fransen J, Dalbeth N, Neogi T, Ralph Schumacher H, Brown M et al. Diagnostic arthrocentesis for suspicion of gout is safe and well tolerated. J Rheumatol. 2016; 43 (1): 150-153. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.150684.

  5. Amigo-Castañeda MC, Canoso JJ. Detección de cristales de urato monosódico en el líquido sinovial en la práctica clínica: barreras y oportunidades. Ann Med (Mex). 2016; 61 (3): 173-176.

  6. García-Méndez S, Arreguín-Reyes R, López-López O, Vázquez-Mellado J. Frecuencia de la gota según la percepción de los médicos en México. Reumatol Clin. 2014; 10: 197-198. doi: 10.1016/j.reuma.2013.06.003.

  7. Swan A, Amer H, Dieppe P. The value of synovial fluid assays in the diagnosis of joint disease: a literature survey. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002; 61 (6): 493-498. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.6.493.

  8. Graf SW, Buchbinder R, Zochling J, Whittle SL. The accuracy of methods for urate crystal detection in synovial fluid and the effect of sample handling: a systematic review. Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 32 (2): 225-232. doi: 10.1007/s10067-012-2107-0.

  9. Lumbreras B, Pascual E, Frasquet J, González-Salinas J, Rodríguez E, Hernández-Aguado I. Analysis for crystals in synovial fluid: training of the analysis results in high consistency. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64 (4): 612-615. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.027268.

  10. Zamudio-Cuevas Y, Martínez-Nava GA, Martínez-Flores K, Ventura-Ríos L, Vazquez-Mellado J, Rodríguez-Enriquez P et al. Synovial fluid analysis for the enhanced clinical diagnosis of crystal arthropathies in a tertiary care institution. Clin Rheumatol. 2021; 40 (8): 3239-3246. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05610-0.

  11. Huang Q, Huang Y, Guo X, Chen J, Zhong Z, Liu Y et al. The diagnostic value of synovial fluid lymphocytes in gout patients. Dis Markers. 2021; 2021: 4385611. doi: 10.1155/2021/4385611.

  12. Liu D, Xiao WF, Li YS. The diagnostic and prognostic value of synovial fluid analysis in joint diseases. Methods Mol Biol. 2023; 2695: 295-308. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-3346-5_20.

  13. Mandell BF. The impact of synovial fluid analysis on clinical practice. Introduction. In: Mandell BF (eds.). Synovial fluid analysis and the evaluation of patients with arthritis. Springer, Cham; 2022. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99612-3_1

  14. Oliviero F, Mandell BF. Synovial fluid analysis: relevance for daily clinical practice. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2023; 37 (1): 101848. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2023.101848.

  15. Punzi L, Oliviero F. Arthrocentesis and synovial fluid analysis in clinical practice: value of sonography in difficult cases. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009; 1154: 152-158. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04389.x.

  16. Berendsen D, Neogi T, Taylor WJ, Dalbeth N, Jansen TL. Crystal identification of synovial fluid aspiration by polarized light microscopy. An online test suggesting that our traditional rheumatologic competence needs renewed attention and training. Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 36 (3): 641-647. doi: 10.1007/s10067-016-3461-0.

  17. Abdullah S, Young-Min SA, Hudson SJ, Kelly CA, Heycock CR, Hamilton JD. Gross synovial fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of joint effusion. J Clin Pathol. 2007; 60 (10): 1144-1147. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2006.043950.

  18. Amer H, Swan A, Dieppe P. The utilization of synovial fluid analysis in the UK. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001; 40 (9): 1060-1063. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.9.1060.

  19. Punzi L, Ramonda R, Oliviero F. Why are rheumatologists still reluctant to perform joint-fluid analysis? Joint Bone Spine. 2015; 82 (3): 139-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2015.01.001.

  20. Pollet S, Coiffier G, Albert JD, Chales G, Guggenbuhl P, Perdriger A. Concordance between fresh joint fluid analysis by the rheumatologist and joint fluid analysis at the laboratory: prospective single-center study of 180 samples. Joint Bone Spine. 2015; 82 (3): 161-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2014.11.005.

  21. Hasselbacher P. Variation in synovial fluid analysis by hospital laboratories. Arthritis Rheum. 1987; 30 (6): 637-642. doi: 10.1002/art.1780300606.

  22. Abdalla A. P004 Rheumatologist vs pathology department: correlation of crystal identification in synovial fluid analysis, Rheumatology. 2021; 60 (Suppl 1): keab247.003. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab247.003.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com