Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT Culture of periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles is more sensitive than conventional techniques, but the impact on laboratory workflow has yet to be addressed. Herein, we examined the impact of culture of periprosthetic tissues in blood culture bottles on laboratory workflow and cost. The workflow was process mapped, decision tree models were constructed using probabilities of positive and negative cultures drawn from our published study (T. N. Peel, B. L. Dylla, J. G. Hughes, D. T. Lynch, K. E. Greenwood-Quaintance, A. C. Cheng, J. N. Mandrekar, and R. Patel, mBio 7: e01776-15, 2016, https: //doi. org/10. 1128/mBio. 01776-15), and the processing times and resource costs from the laboratory staff time viewpoint were used to compare periprosthetic tissues culture processes using conventional techniques with culture in blood culture bottles. Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of positive cultures. Annualized labor savings were estimated based on salary costs from the U. S. Labor Bureau for Laboratory staff. The model demonstrated a 60. 1% reduction in mean total staff time with the adoption of tissue inoculation into blood culture bottles compared to conventional techniques (mean ± standard deviation, 30. 7 ± 27. 6 versus 77. 0 ± 35. 3 h per month, respectively; P < 0. 001). The estimated annualized labor cost savings of culture using blood culture bottles was 10, 876. 83 (±337. 16). Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of culture positivity (5 to 50%). Culture in blood culture bottles was cost-effective, based on the estimated labor cost savings of 2, 132. 71 for each percent increase in test accuracy. In conclusion, culture of periprosthetic tissue in blood culture bottles is not only more accurate than but is also cost-saving compared to conventional culture methods.
Peel et al. (Thu,) studied this question.