Background: The distinction between aseptic and septic loosening of a total hip arthroplasty is a diagnostic challenge. Therapy and clinical success depend on the correct diagnosis. Histopathological evaluation of the periprosthetic interface membrane is one possible diagnostic parameter; detailed analysis of tissue characteristics may reflect the cause of failure. This study evaluated the diagnostic value of a published histopathological consensus classification for the periprosthetic interface membrane in the identification of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods: Between 2004 and 2008, a prospective analysis was performed in 106 patients who had revisions because of assumed PJI. Based on clinical presentation, radiography, and haematological screening, infection was assumed, and a joint aspiration was performed. Based on these findings, a two-stage revision was performed, with intraoperative samples for culture and histological evaluation obtained. Final diagnosis of infection was based on the interpretation of the clinical presentation and the preoperative and intraoperative findings. The basis for histopathological evaluation was the consensus classification for the periprosthetic interface membrane. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for each parameter. Results: In 92 patients, a positive diagnosis of PJI could be made. Histopathology yielded the highest accuracy (0.93) in identification of PJI, identifying 86 of 92 infections (69 type II, 17 type III). In 13 of the 14 noninfected hips, histopathology correlated in 13 (93%) cases (10 type I, three type IV). The accuracies of microbiological culture, C-reactive protein, and aspiration were 0.82, 0.86, and 0.54, respectively. Conclusion: In the diagnosis of PJI, histopathological evaluation of the periprosthetic interface membrane proved very effective. To analyse the cause of prosthesis loosening, tissue samples of the periprosthetic interface membrane should be evaluated on the basis of the consensus classification in all revision surgeries. © 2009 Springer Medizin Verlag.
