ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.

Sec. Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1611398

This article is part of the Research TopicExpanded Genus Brucella: from Taxonomy to Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis ChallengesView all 8 articles

Clinical and Diagnostic Insights into Brucellar Arthritis: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Provisionally accepted
Qiangsheng  FengQiangsheng FengYuan  XingYuan XingYuan  XingYuan XingXiaoqin  HaXiaoqin Ha*
  • People's Liberation Army Joint Logistics Support Force 940th Hospital, Lanzhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background This study evaluates the diagnostic value of etiological and serological testing in distinguishing brucellosis arthropathy from other inflammatory joint diseases. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 cases of brucellosis arthropathy diagnosed between 2012 and 2024, alongside 60 non-infected controls. Bacterial cultures were performed using blood, joint fluid-blood bottle culture, and joint tissue samples, with microbial identification via VITEK Compact-II or MALDI-TOF MS. Clinical features, serological results (Standard Agglutination Test [SAT] and Rose Bengal Test [RBT]), and imaging findings were analyzed. The diagnostic performance of biomarkers was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results Among the 68 cases, 22 (32.4%) were confirmed by bacterial culture, with Brucella melitensis identified as the causative agent. Joint fluid-blood bottle culture was the most effective method (62.2%), with a mean detection time of 74.8 ± 17.9 hours (range: 41-110 hours) in aerobic bottles. Blood culture and joint tissue culture yielded positive results in 40.9% and 4.5% of cases, respectively. Brucellosis arthropathy accounted for 7.5% of total brucellosis cases, predominantly affecting males (67.6%) with a median age of 43.1 ± 13.2 years. Chronic cases had a median duration of 90 days (IQR: 30-343 days). The knee joint was the most commonly affected site (64.7%), followed by the hip (20.6%) and sacroiliac joints (10.3%). Imaging revealed septic arthritis (20.7%), joint effusion (31.0%), bone destruction (12.0%), degenerative changes (10.3%), and prosthetic joint infection (6.9%). The sensitivity for Brucella culture, SAT, and RBT were 69.7%, 87.7%, and 91.2%, respectively, with a combined sensitivity of 92.6%. ROC analysis identified CRP as a highly sensitive and specific biomarker (cutoff: 4.07 mg/mL; sensitivity: 84.2%, specificity: 72.2%; Z = 5.568, p < 0.001). All patients were treated with doxycycline and rifampicin for 3 months, with 34% requiring surgical intervention. The prognosis was satisfactory in all cases.Conclusions Brucellosis arthropathy, often chronic and predominantly affecting the knee and hip joints, presents with septic arthritis, joint effusion, and bone destruction on imaging. Diagnosis can be effectively achieved through aerobic joint fluid-blood bottle culture, SAT, and RBT. Early diagnosis and combined medical-surgical management yield favorable outcomes.

Keywords: Brucellosis arthropathy, Brucella melitensis, Joint fluid-blood bottle culture, Clinical Characteristics, infection biomarker

Received: 14 Apr 2025; Accepted: 23 May 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Feng, Xing, Xing and Ha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Xiaoqin Ha, People's Liberation Army Joint Logistics Support Force 940th Hospital, Lanzhou, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.