Bombay Hospital Journal ContentsHomeArchivesSearchBooksFeedback


Home > Table of Contents > Original / Research Articles
 

Role of Synovial Fluid Analysis and Synovial Biopsy in Joint Diseases

Sangeeta B Kulkarni (Bhide)*, Ila M Vora**, Subhash Abraham***, Shanu Srivastava*, Jignesh Sheth+, Rakesh Chaturvedi++

 

Synovial Biopsies (SBx) are usually done to diagnose joint diseases. However, synovial fluid (SF) analysis may provide an easier, non-invasive option. The aim is to determine the utility of SF tests and to correlate the results with synovial biopsies (SBx).

Prospectively 30 cases of joint diseases were studied on whom SBx was done during arthroscopy and in 50% cases SF was analysed following arthrocentesis.
SF analysis in 15 cases showed Noninflammatory-3 (all Baker’s cyst) and inflammatory 12 cases which included Rheumatoid arthritis - three (serologically Rheumatoid Factor positive), Tuberculosis - two, Noninfective - seven.

SBX was categorized as Noninflammatory three cases (all Baker’s cyst). Chronic nonspecific inflammation 20 cases, Tuberculosis - four cases and Rheumatoid arthritis - three cases.

This study revealed SF analysis and SBx are complementary to each other for arriving at a specific diagnosis. Mucin clot and string test (MCST) correlates well with biopsy. However, synovial fluid analysis alone could help in differentiating inflammatory and non-inflammatory conditions.

 
INTRODUCTION

Arthrocentesis is generally a simple, relatively non-invasive way to gather critical information in patients of mono or polyarticular arthropathy.1-3 Sampling of synovial fluid is among the most useful tests available to the clinician evaluating the patient.2 Synovial biopsy procedure is also easy and carried out at the same time.4 It helps to distinguish between various inflammatory, non-inflammatory, traumatic and crystal induced arthropathies.5 In this study we have tried to predict the aetiology of a joint pathology by synovial fluid analysis as compared to synovial biopsy in order to determine the usefulness of simple tests done on synovial fluid.

 
Material and Methods

A prospective study of synovial fluid analysis and synovial biopsy were carried out in cases of joint diseases from July 2001 to June 2002 at Terna Medical College, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
Arthrocentesis was performed using aseptic techniques after the patient was kept fasting for eight hours.5-7 Synovial fluid was aspirated from knee joints in 15 cases and analysed after collecting into three tubes:

a. Five ml in plain bulb for biochemical studies.

b. 2.5 ml in anticoagulant bulb (EDTA) for TLC, DLC, wet preparation and mucin clot and string tests.

c. Five to ten ml in sterile tube for microbiological studies.

Examination of synovial fluid was done as early as possible and following tests were done on each sample.1,6,8,9

i. Gross examination : Volume, colour and clarity.

ii. Chemical analysis : Glucose estimation done by GOD-POD method. Protein estimation done by Biuret method.

iii. Mucin clot and String tests for viscosity.

iv. Microscopic examination : Total leucocyte count done by the standard haematological counting chamber method using isotonic saline with methylene blue as the diluent. Differential

Mucin clot test (MCT)2,7 : It reflects the depolarization of hyaluronic acid and demonstrated by the precipitation of hyaluronate by acetic acid into the mucin clot. One part of synovial fluid is added to four parts of 2% acetic acid. After stirring briskly the nature of clot produced is noted and interpreted as shown in Table 1.

String Test (ST) / Falling drop test1,6,7,9 : Synovial fluid is allowed to drop from a Pasteur pipette while noting the length of the string formed. Normal length of string is 4 to 6 cm (average 5 cm). Abnormal string less than 3 cm indicating low viscosity.

Other test parameters used to differentiate between inflammatory and noninflammatory categories2,5,6,8 are given in Table 2.

Septic arthritis was considered when TLC was greater than 50,000 cell/cumm with greater than 75% neutrophils.2,3,6,10

Table 1 : Interpretation of mucin clot test
Grade Clot Solution
Good Tight ropy mass Clear
Fair Softer, shreddy Clear/Hazy
Poor Shreddy Turbid
 
Table 2 : Test parameters differentiating inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions
Disease Less than or Less than or Greater than 25 Less than or
  equal to 2000 equal to 25 equal to 40 equal to 2.5
Inflammatory Greater than 2000 Greater than 25 Less than 40 Greater than 25
 
Table 3 : Synovial fluid analysis
Diagnosis No.of cases Appearance TLC
cells/cumm
% of
Neutrophils
*MCT +ST
in cm
Protein
gm/dl
Glucose
mg/dl
1Non Inflammatory                
a. Baker’s cyst 3 Clear 100-2100 18-28 Good 5-5.2 1.2-2.4 71.5-90
2. Inflammatory                
Rheumatoid 3 Turbid 4500-30000 51-76 Fair to Poor 3-3.5 4.2-6.4 26-40
Arthritis                
b.Tuberculosis 2 Turbid 10500-14800 55-61 Fair 2-2.2 4.3-4.5 30-40
Non infective 7 Turbid 4800-17250 51-82 Fair to Poor 1-1.38 2.4-4.2 28-98
                 

 

 
Results

ICrystals were not detected in wet preparation in any case. Grams and Ziehl-Neelsen stains were negative for organisms. Cultures failed to show any growth.

Synovial biopsies revealed Non-inflammatory conditions - 3 (all Baker’s cyst) and Inflammatory Conditions - 27 where (Non specific inflammation - 20, Tuberculosis - 4 and Rheumatoid arthritis - 3).

 
Discussion

Of the 15 cases of synovial fluid analyzed, 3 were noninflammatory and the remaining 12 were inflammatory. Prompt examination of synovial fluid is required to avoid problems of misdiagnosing borderline inflammatory conditions, missing calcium pyrophosphatedihydrate crystals that dissolve with time or over interpreting new artifactual findings.3,11 Good clarity with good mucin clot test signifies non-inflammatory conditions whereas turbid appearance with fair to poor Mucin clot test were indicative of inflammatory conditions. These results were similar to that of Broderick et al and other workers.1,2,6,12

Total leucocyte count ranging between 100 and 2100 cells/cumm with polymorphonuclear 18 to 23% in non-inflammatory joint diseases were in line with the observations of other workers.2,6,8,12 However, there was a frequent overlap of TLC with that of various inflammatory arthropathies.

Findings in rheumatoid arthritis were similar to those of other workers.2,3,6,12 Except in one case where Neutrophils were 76% of a total count of 30,000 cells/cumm. High neutrophil count is known in acute stage of rheumatoid arthritis similar to septic arthritis.13,14 However total leucocyte count greater than 50,000 cells/cumm is required for the diagnosis of septic arthritis

Counts in cases of tuberculosis were similar to Wallace et al.15 In general the appearance of joint fluid in tuberculous arthritis depends on the stage of the disease with the diagnosis dependent on demonstration of acid fast bacilli in smear of culture.15 Wallace et al found 20% of patients of tuberculous arthritis to be positive for acid fast bacilli and 80% on synovial fluid culture.15 Both were negative in our study but surmised by typical appearances obtained on biopsy.

High neutrophil counts on DLC are sometimes obtained which were not categorized as septic arthritis in our study since TLC was less than the required number of 50,000 cells/cumm and no organisms on Gram stain or culture could be demonstrated.

Moderate reduction or normal glucose levels were seen in cases of inflammatory joint diseases but are usually linked to the levels in the serum. Glucose levels in synovial fluid are usually less than that of the serum by about 10 mg/dl in normal and in noninflammatory conditions but may be 20-60 mg/dl in septic arthritis. However, frequent overlaps are seen limiting the usefulness of glucose levels of synovial fluid.2,3,6,8

Protein is not an accurate marker to distinguish inflammatory from noninflammatory diseases.2,3,6,8 These findings are summarized in Table 3. Protein levels of synovial fluid involve multiple determinants like synovial microvessels, increased permeability and production and consumption of protein by the synovium. With other factors like local blood supply, lymphatic drainage and serum concentration.16

Rheumatoid arthritis may be RA positive but more characteristically shows typical histological appearances in the synovium including villous hypertrophy, proliferation of superficial synovial cells, infiltration with chronic inflammatory cells like lymphocytes and plasma cells, formation of lymphoid follicles, deposition of fibrin and foci of necrosis4,5,13,14 (Fig. 1). Rheumatoid nodules may be present (Fig. 2). They were present in 7.6% cases of seropositive cases studied by Fassbender and 13% in other series.5

In the inflammatory group, the majority were chronic non-specific inflammation and showed mild to moderate villous hypertrophy, proliferated synovial cells and infiltration of chronic inflammatory cells. Accurate diagnosis of a particular disease in this broad group is difficult in routinely strained sections.

A better understanding of the pathogenesis may be achieved by immunohistochemical methods.5

In the non-inflammatory group, Baker’s cyst showed a typical histopathologic appearance and all were from the popliteal area.4

 
Conclusion

Synovial fluid analysis helps to identify inflammatory conditions by virtue of the following-

  1. Total leucocyte count greater than 2000 cells/cumm
  2. Polymorphonuclears greater than 25%
  3. Mucin clot and string test showing fair to poor viscosity.

However, due to frequent overlap of synovial fluid findings, the above mentioned parameters are of limited usefulness to distinguish among the various aetiologies of the inflammatory group which still need to be biopsied to arrive at a specific diagnosis.

 
References
1. Sanyal S. Examination of synovial fluid. In: Sanyal S, editor. Prep manual for undergraduates - Clinical Pathology. 1st ed. New Delhi : BI Churchill Livingstone Private limited 2000; 302-10.
2. Shmerling RH. Synovial fluid analysis : A critical reappraisal. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1994; 20 (2) : 503-12.
3. Spencer RT. Arthrocentesis and Synovial fluid analysis. In: West SG, editor. Rheumatology Secrets. 1st ed. New Delhi : Jaypee brothers Medical Publishers, 1997; P 52-55.
4. Rosai J, Bone and Joints. In : Rosai J, editor. Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology. 8th ed. St. Louis : Mosby - Year Book Inc; 1996; P 1917-2002.
5. Revell PA. The synovial biopsy. In : Antony PP, Mac Sween RM, Lowe DG, editors. Recent Advances in Histopathology. 13th no. Edinburgh : Churchill Livingstone; 1987; P 79-83.
6. Smith GP, Kjeldsberg CR. Cerebrospinal, synovial and serous body fluids. In : Henry JB, Davey FR, Nakamura RM, Pincus MR, Woods GL, editors. Clinical Diagnosis and management by laboratory methods. 19th ed. Philadelphia : WB Saunders Company, 1996; P 467-91.
7. hala CI, Mansuri LA. Synovial and amniotic fluid. In : Jhala CI, Mansuri LA, editors. Clinical Pathology with multiple choice Questions. 1st ed. New Delhi. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1995; P 301-6.
8. Shmerling RH, Delbanco TL, Tosteson AA, Trenthan DE. Synovial fluid tests : what should be ordered? JAMA 1990; 264 (8) : 1009-14.
9. Eisenberg JM, Schumacher HR, Davidson PK, Kaufman NL. Usefulness of Synovial fluid analysis in the evaluation of joint effusions. Arch Inter Med 1984; 144 : 715-19.
10. Hasselbacher P. Arthrocentesis, Synovial fluid analysis and synovial biopsy. In : Klippel JH, Wyand CM, Wortmann RL, editors. Primer on Rheumatic diseases. 11th ed. Atlanta : Arthritis foundation, 1997; P 98-104.
11. Kerolus G, Clayburne G, Schumacher HR. Is it mandatory to examine synovial fluid promptly after arthrocentesis. Arthritis Rheum 1989; 32 (3) : 271-78.
12. Broderick PA, Corvese N, Pierik MG, Pike RF, Mariorenzi AL. Exfoliative cytology interpretation of synovial fluid in joint diseases. J Bone Joint Surg 1976; 58 A (3) : 396-99.
13. Schiller AL. Bones and joints. In : Rubin E, Farber JL, editors. Pathology. 1st ed. Philadelphia : JB Lippincott Company 1988; P 1304-93.
14. Bullough PG. Joint diseases. In : Sternberg SS, Antonioli DA, Carter D, Mills SE, Oberman HA, editors. Diagnostic Surgical Pathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Company, 1999; 223-42.
15. Wallace R, Cohem AS. Tuberculous Arthritis : A report of two cases with review of biopsy and synovial fluid findings. Am J Med 1976; 277-82.
16. Weinberger A, Simkin PA. Plasma proteins in synovial fluid of normal human joints. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1989; 19 (1) : 66-76.

 

A Coxib a Day Won’t Keep the Doctor Away

The first agents to block cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX2) were commercially introduced 5 years ago as new alternatives to existing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In particular, rofecoxib was associated with an unanticipated five-fold increase in myocardial infarctions compared with naproxen.

A second generation of agents with improved COX2 selectivity has been developed that includes valdecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib. Unlike other coxibs, lumiracoxib is not a tricyclic compound; its molecular phenyl acetic acid structure represents an analogue of diclofenac. Despite diclofenac’s marked popularity in Europe and it being the most frequently used NSAID worldwide, it is hepatotoxic in about 4% of patients. Thus, whether lumiracoxib carried any analogous adverse potential and what the improved COX2 selectivity would achieve insofar as safety and efficacy remained to be established.
Furthermore, patients were stratified on the basis of their taking low-dose aspirin.

The results of TARGET again raise concern of an excess of myocardial infarctions with lumiracoxib compared with naproxen. In patients who were not taking low-dose aspirin, the hazard ratio climbed even higher.

In a recent small randomised trial comparing valdecoxib and parecoxib with placebo in coronary artery bypass surgery, there was a clustering of myocardial infarction and stroke events in patients assigned to receive coxibs. Furthermore, recent studies with rofecoxib have shown its propensity to raise blood pressure and its capacity to precipitate congestive heart failure.

The cardiovascular implications of the present trial bear direct relevance to the interpretation of the gastrointestinal effects of lumiracoxib. As in other coxib trials, there was a significant decrease in the frequency of upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications in patients not taking low-dose aspirin. Beyond the salutary effects on ulcer complications the hepatotoxicity of lumiracoxib was manifest.

TARGET quantifies lumiracoxib’s narrow benefit over two NSAIDs with a trade-off.

The coxib field has been marked by intensive direct to consumer advertising in the USA, and sales of these drugs exceed US$7 billion per year. Yet, it is hard to imagine the justification for this extraordinary adoption and coxibs in light of marginal efficacy, heightened risk, and excessive cost compared with traditional NSAIDs.

The continued commercial availability of rofecoxib, without a black-box warning for cardiovascular patients is indeed troubling

Eric J Topol, Gary W Falk, Lancet, 2004; 364 : 639-40.